Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO621.ZIP/V16NO621

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 05:05:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #621
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 25 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 621

Today's Topics:
                        *PLONK* (was: Zzzzzz!)
             Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (2 msgs)
                  Detecting planets in other system
                   Hey Philly! Re: Why Government?
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                   Magellan Briefing Set For May 26
                          Moon Base (3 msgs)
            Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games (2 msgs)
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
                  Tom's suggestion (was Pat's plan)
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 16:02:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: *PLONK* (was: Zzzzzz!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>>Of course, I'm not the one who inititated
>>several long threads of snotty mail and is now back to sniping in
>>public now that his mail is no longer being accepted, am I?  That guy
>>is named Tommy Mac.

>No, you were the one who responded with several long threads of snotty
>insults, all of which avoided the one question that was the crux of the
>personal problems you have with me that compels you to bring this issue
>back to the net.  The question, in case you forgot;  Why do you apply
>your rule so vehemently, and steadfastly, if you don't like to flame?

>If you don't want to answer it, just say so.  When you get upset and
>flame about it, never even addressing it, it makes it sound a lot more
>important than it probably is.

You've convinced me, Tommy.  You've nothing worthwhile to say.
Goodbye.

>If Pat calls it a joke, you call it 'flame-bait'.  If you do the same
>thing (posting jibes out of the blue) and I say it's flame-bait, using
>your criteria, you get all upset, claim I'm 'sniping', and tell me
>to 'shove off'.  If that's not a double standard, what is?

I'm not upset and you lie a lot.  So what?  Consider yourself
'shoved off'.

>Yes, I have figured it out.  You like to ask insulting questions.  Attaching
>any more importance to it than that seems a waste of time to me.  Of course,
>you will probably tell me I'm incorrect, and should take a class in
>rhetorical questions, rather than telling us all what great, profound things
>go on in your mind that gives you such eloquence when you insult people.

If this is the sort of conclusion you arrive at when you 'figure
things out', good thing you're going to a strictly *observational*
science.  I'd hate to see you making decisions based on your kind of
reasoning.

See you around.  NOT.  Congratulations on 'convincing' me to break my
usual policy about kill files.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 15:53:00 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+,
>>>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time
>>>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little
>>>marginal to me.
>>
>>Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when
>>compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been
>>demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling...

>The B-58 wasn't capable of Mach 3 even in a dash, and neither the SR-71
>nor the X-15 was made of aluminum.  (The SR-71 was mostly titanium, and
>the X-15 used titanium for its *low-temperature* structure plus various
>refractory metals for the hot stuff.)

Hmmm, I thought that the Foxbat and follow-ons did this, though.  Mach
3 (roughly) sprint with an aluminum aircraft (Soviet titanium use
tended to be more prevalent for submarines than for aircraft).  I
(vaguely) recall seeing somewhere that the MiG-31 could do a Mach 3
sprint but could not do it sustained because it would melt (and could
therefore be overtaken over time by the slower F-15 Eagle).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 15:55:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1to6kj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>|The B-58 wasn't capable of Mach 3 even in a dash, and neither the SR-71
>|nor the X-15 was made of aluminum.  (The SR-71 was mostly titanium, and
>|the X-15 used titanium for its *low-temperature* structure plus various
>>refractory metals for the hot stuff.)

>How about the XB-70?

I don't think the Valkyrie did Mach 3.  I also believe it used a fair
amount of titanium for the hot bits.  I can check when I get home, if
you like.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 17:16:43 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Frank Crary,
[e-mail] writes:
>Actually, an interferometer(sp?) array in the thermal IR has a reasonable
>chance, if you can get a couple of orbital telescopes and a baseline
>of ~500,000 km. In the thermal IR the signal to noise (i.e. star's
>flux to that of the planet) is greatest, since you are in the peak of
>the planet's Plank curve but well away from the star's peak.

Aside from the evident difficulty of accomplishing such a feat over that
heroic baseline, there is a pervasive fallacy implicit here. One finds it
in many places, occasionaly even in the peer-reviewed literature. I know
Frank is aware of this, but it should always be pointed out.

Given all other factors being equal, of two black bodies with different
temperatures, the body having the higher temperature is the brighter at
every wavelength.

In typical star-planet pairs all other factors are not equal, and they
all
favor the star in brightness. At the peak wavelength of Jupiter's
(T = 125 K) blackbody radiation peak (about 23 micrometers) the sun would
be 14 magnitudes brighter (about a half million times as bright).*

Leigh

*Please be merciful if I have blown this computation badly. Today's a
holiday here in Canada, so I'm not officially on duty. :-))

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1993 13:05:18 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Philly! Re: Why Government?
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|
|   C. OMS/RCS system: It just works. But aside from slightly better
|      electronics, there's nothing really different about this than
>      Perhaps this is a good lesson: the "least advanced" system is
>      giving Yeoman sevice...


Actually, I would seriously criticize the OMS/RCS  system also.

The system is fueled off hydrazine, an amazingly poisonous and
corrozsive fuel.  Each shuttle landing has to hold on the
runway  for appx an hour while  the System is safed.  no close approach
is allowed,  and i think iv'e even seen giant fans to blow away
any leakage fumes.

This is not conducive to safety  or easy maintenance.  any thruster
service always requires special procedures.

I'd have felt better with either LH/LOX  thrusters,  or
H2O2 thrusters.  or even MEthane oxygen.

ANother interesting comment,  is the OMS engines are dead weight
to orbit.  it might have been interesting to design them so they
contribute to useful payload,  instead of being  mass fraction.

pat

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 19:20:30 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tn3f7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Hayashida) writes, in response to Allen Sherzer:

   [...]
   The S-V vehicle put up the whole S-IV-B stage plus the LEM-CSM-escape tower.
   If all of those pieces are gonna get talleyed into the S-V mass to orbit
   figure, why shouldn't the orbiter's mass be talleyed in to LEO calc?

Because Allen is considering costs of putting useful material into
LEO. Stuff that we want to _stay_ in LEO. The orbiter is a necessary
part of the STS launch system (because it includes the airframe, the
SSMEs etc), but doesn't stay in LEO. If we wanted to build a real
space station (neither Fred nor any of the redesigns but a _real_
space station), or go to Mars, or return to the Moon to stay, we would
have several options:

(1) use Shuttle. Only the payload stays in orbit. Allen's post gives
    the figures for this. Yes, we should count some of the orbiter
    mass as payload (since it has things like life-support, EVA, etc).
    But if our first concern is to get massive structures into orbit
    we don't care about those.

cost: Phenomenally expensive, even if you write off Shuttle R&D
pork: loads

(2) resurrect Saturn and use the S-V to put 260 klb into LEO at a
    time. Don't bother rebuilding S-IV-B etc. Allen's post gives the
    figures for this too.

cost: Very expensive but much cheaper than Shuttle, even if you count
      in Saturn R&D
pork: loads

(3) use Atlas/Titan/etc to put up small bits at a time.

cost: a bit cheaper than Shuttle but less convenient if you want
      people in orbit.
pork: not much

(4) buy something from the Russians

cost: cheap now in the Great Russian Fire Sale, but that Must End Saturday.
pork: none

(5) develop a new launch system (e.g. Delta Clipper).

cost: not certain but probably cheaper than 1-3.
pork: not much.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1993 15:28 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Briefing Set For May 26
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 24, 1993
(Phone:  [phone])

Franklin O'Donnell
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


NOTICE TO EDITORS:  N93-29

MAGELLAN PRESS BRIEFING SCHEDULED

     Initial progress of the Magellan spacecraft's aerobraking
maneuver and recent gravity findings at Venus will be the topic
of a press briefing Wednesday, May 26, at 1 p.m. EDT.

     The press briefing will originate from the Audio/Video
Center at NASA Headquarters, 300 E. Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C., and will be broadcast over NASA Select television.

     On May 25 Magellan will complete its fourth 8-month orbital
cycle at Venus and will dip into the planet's atmosphere in a new
aerobraking experiment to lower Magellan's orbit.  At that point,
Magellan will have successfully completed all of its mission
objectives by collecting radar maps of 98 percent of Venus'
surface as well as data on the planet's gravity field.

     The press briefing will include a status update on the
aerobraking experiment and a release of photos and video from
Magellan's gravity studies during its fourth orbital cycle.

     Speakers will include Dr. Wesley Huntress, Associate
Administrator for NASA's Office of Space Science; Douglas
Griffith, Magellan Project Manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., ; Dr. William Sjogren,
Principal Investigator of Magellan's gravity experiment; Dr.
Ellen Stofan, Magellan Deputy Project Scientist; and Dr. R.
Stephen Saunders, Magellan Project Scientist.

     NASA Select television is carried on Satcom F2R, transponder
13, located at 72 degrees west longitude.  Two-way question-and-
answer capability will be available at JPL and other NASA

centers.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 16:07:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Lunar bases don't make economic or scientific sense, and they aren't
>>*necessary* stepping stones to the more interesting targets.
>
>Ah, but they are. The first mining facilities MUST be on the moon
>because that's the only place where they will get a realistic test
>where it doesn't take years to fix bugs.
>
>  Allen

Also, the far side makes an excellent location for all kinds of astronomy,
radio especially.

Establishing travel back to the moon, IMHO, *has* to be a pre-requsite to
many other types of travel to the rest of the solar system. Just to use
is as a testing grounds for technology if for nothing else. A Mars mission
really only makes sence if the travelers stay there for about a month or
more. The moon isn't (obviously) a direct comparison to Mars, but a lot of
what those people will need in the way of living environments could be
tested on the moon first.

Also, on another angle, going to the moon, and getting serious about it,
I feel would be better in the long run for the space program politically.

People have a hard time conceptualizing projects that need to be funded
NOW but won't fly for ten years. People like to see a timely return on
their investment, even if its just pretty pictures. It keeps people's
interest up between the long projects. The moon is a good target for this
because its close - mission times are short. Quick return. In the mean
time, keep working on the long projects.

--
Tim Harincar
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 15:28:31 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Les Kirk) writes:

>Does NASA or any other private firm have plans to construct a moon base?

>I for one would love to see a base constructed and inhabited by a wide
>variety of people.  The technology exists today to make such an adventure
>plausible I'm sure.

>Could the shuttle be outfitted with the necessary oxygen to make a trip
>back to the moon possible?  I certainly do not see why it couldnt be.

>If missions are now lasting as much as 4 to 7 days, why could they not
>last an extra 4 to 7 days and then return?

>Anyone have any ideas on this subject?

It would be cheaper to use a purpose-built vehicle rather than haul
all that extraneous mass (wings, etc) clear to the Moon and back.
You'd also have no good way to set down, unless you took a lander with
you.  Even a Shuttle with EDO pallet would be marginal for a trip like
this, even assuming you could refuel it once it got to LEO so that it
could make the trip.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 16:37:28 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> I've been on the other side of this with Nick, but comets and Earth
>> crossing asteroids may offer much higher commercial rewards. And open space
>> offers commercial potential for communications, manufacturing, and perhaps
>> even power. What's Luna offer? Maybe He3, some light metals and oxygen
>> buried in yet another gravity well. Not very appealing.
>
>The moon offers easily available metal and oxygen ores and a gravitational
>field, and is nearby (short communication times and within manned reach).  It
>would probably be cheaper and easier to develop a resource extraction
>facility there than to develop zero-g facilities for extracting water from
>near-Earth asteroids.

Perhaps not. To mention only a couple of free space advantages, continous
solar power and relatively easy availability of any desired temperature.
On Luna, solar power is available to most sites only 2 weeks out of 4.
The temperature extremes on the surface are much higher than on Earth
or in free space on a thermally controlled platform. It's nearly trivial
to keep any desired temperature by use of paints and rotation in space.
The *lack* of a gravity well simplifies large structures and reduces the
energy requirements for materials handling. And spinning structures can
generate any desired artificial gradients. Communications lags would not
necessarily be long, depends on where in space the platform is located.
Transport to and from Earth, or other places, is greatly simplified by
the lack of a second gravity well.

There are some emergency scenarios where a three day transit time is
less of a problem than a 6 month transit time, but most situations
would require either immediate help or don't bother. Large structures
in high Earth orbit would have even shorter response times, with much
less energy required to return to Earth than from the bottom of the
Lunar well. Industrial accident cases in an orbital facility would be
much closer to help than those stranded on Luna.


>The technology and facilities developed with a lunar base project would
>greatly reduce the cost of developing open-space projects.  It would be a
>more gradual development; technology in small steps, rather than one risky
>leap.

Are we sure of this? None of the material transport systems developed would be
useful in open space. Few of the radiation protection or thermal shielding
techniques would translate. Most of the processes would be totally different
because of the gravity well and differences in ores. For men on site, even
the spacesuit designs would be radically different. Even 1/6 G changes the
best manner of locomotion grossly. You can't really "walk" in space despite
the popular media's phrasing. Long term recycling in a closed environment,
and teleoperation could both be developed just as easily in open space
as on Luna. Luna would offer the additional complication of dust being
tracked into the habitat every time someone or something is moved through
a lock. That would be less of a problem where people and machines don't
walk or roll.

>A mining company would probably choose a lower-grade ore body in a temperate,
>developed area rather than a higher-grade one in Antarctica, where they'd
>face new problems (redesigning equipment for extreme cold) and the hassle of
>time delays (no FedEx overnight delivery).  For similar reasons, I do think
>that although asteroids will eventually be a cheaper source of resources than
>the moon, they would not be at this time.

Well lets look at history. How about the Alaskan gold rush when there were
lower grade ores still workable in friendly California, or even North Georgia?
How about oil companies traipsing off to the Arabian deserts, or the North
Slope of Alaska, when there are still lower grade deposits available in the
good old lower 48 of the US of A? Why dig extremely deep and expensive diamond
mines in South Africa when diamonds can be picked up off the ground in
Arkansas, or made in GE's labs? Nitrate mining in Chile, nickel in the wilds
of Sudbury, kaolin in gnat infested South Georgia, are all examples of
resources being gotten in God forsaken places because high grade ore is
usually much cheaper to transport than low grade ore is to process into
high grade.

Oh, and BTW, every major oil company in the world is itching to drill
in Antarctica. Only a UN treaty is stopping them.

>>Lunar bases don't make economic or
>> scientific sense, and they aren't *necessary* stepping stones to the more
>> interesting targets.
>
>They aren't *necessary*, but they could make economic and scientific sense.
>Studying "dead bones" provides a lot of critical information for studying
>living animals.  Without the study of fossilized remains, scientists might
>still be studying existing life forms from an incorrect perspective.
>Likewise, studying the "fossilized bones of the solar system" (the moon),
>might provide useful insights into processes on Io, Venus, etc.  BTW, can you
>provide a list of "interesting" targets in a list that everyone can agree on?

No doubt the Moon has many old rocks, some at least as old as the last major
bombardment, but comets and asteroids are likely the home of even older
solar system materials, not just rocks. And they are easier to get to
to study than deep lunar deposits. Deep drilling is likely to be nearly
as hard to do on the Moon as it is here on Earth. We've rung the Lunar
seismic bell, and we can do so again if we choose without establishing
a base. Other than some surface prospecting on a less differentiated body
than any of the active bodies in the solar system, there's little to be
gained from a permanent geological base on the Moon. And importantly, being
a dead body, it isn't going to change if we decide not to look at it just now.

The only real scientific mission of value to Luna would be a radio observatory
on the farside where the sensitive receivers could be shielded effectively
from the radio noise of Earth. Optical observatories are probably better
placed in open space because of the microscopic distortions introduced by
the Lunar gravity field, though there is something to be said for a large
inactive anchor point. That would be disturbed by lunar mining and blasting,
so the two are unlikely to coexist happily.

As to interesting targets, I think most industrial space interests would
rather investigate an Earth crossing comet or asteroid than the Moon. For
scientific and public interest, the only other body with evidence of open
water having moved on it's surface in recent geological time holds the
highest interest. I'd follow that by tectonically and chemically active
sites like the moons of the Jovians, and Venus. Mercury is another body
of considerable interest, one of the coldest, and hottest, spots in the
solar system, it would give us a location for observing that big fusion
reactor up close and personal.

>To put it simply, the moon project might be feasible to get money for.  The
>asteroid one--needing more money and requiring more new technology--might not
>be.

A lunar base would be a mammoth undertaking. A cometary mining program
would be similarly large. But the former offers almost no hope of economic
return while the latter at least has a chance of being profitable. I doubt
that the deep pockets really want to throw their money away indefinitely
by betting on the dead horse. One that at least wheezes is a better
investment. It's akin to attempting to plant a colony in a malarial swamp
when there is nice fertile high ground just over the next rise. The first
is just a plant the flag enterprise with continuing massive funding required
for survival while the second offers a chance at self sufficiency and profit.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:54:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Smith) writes:

>I think that a slew rate of 15 deg/sec is high, but it is not impossible
>to get if one is willing to pay for it.  I think the technical difficulties
>are not impossible, but I still don't see a need for it, as one poster
>said, the time is spent in analyzing the still photos and one could get
>caught in "we can't invade until 2:00pm because thats when the satellite
>will be able to film it" etc.

That "one poster" was *also* me.  Unfortunately, you appear to have
disregarded the remarks about the whiz-bang war rooms that (mostly)
don't get used for 'real work'.  But we still have them.  As for the
"we can't invade until <X>" issue, you get the same problem with
stills.  If you need the pictures, you need the pictures.  The
'mission' for live video would not be the same as the sort of
intelligence analysis that is generally done with 'still' photo sats.

>I think the whole point is that Patriot Games was a movie, any relation
>to real life is purely a figment of someones imagination.

Perhaps.  But then, real life is often at least as 'strange' as
fiction.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:58:06 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren Carpenter) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>>
>>>Another question is whats the NEED for "live video" from space?  The primary
>>>job for these sats is to produce high resolution images (i.e. stills) of
>>>areas for detailed analysis, to build up various maps and datasets, and to
>>>be able to compare images of the same region from multiple satellite passes
>>>in order to highlight any changes and such.  None of these missions would
>>>be particularly enhanced by "video"...
>>
>>[Since most of the real work is done by lots of people doing boring
>>work with stereo lenses in back rooms, there's actually no need for
>>'real-time imagery' at all -- store and forward would be plenty good
>>enough, since the time consumer is going to be the analysis on the
>>ground, anyway.]
>>

>    2 assumptions in the above paragraph:

>    a) Store and forward is practical.  (How many gigabytes can you
>        reliably cram in a satellite?  Those pictures are BIG.)

Many, many gigabytes.  Storage needn't be particularly large if you
are willing to use 'modern' technologies (as opposed to what often
gets used on things like planetary imagers, for example).

>    b) Everybody is real patient and nobody wants to see a picture NOW.

Which is, of course, the whole argument for the existence of real-time
30 frame-per-second video, despite there not being any real 'need' for
it.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 16:52:36 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, davem@ee (Dave Michelson) writes:
>>Note that the Soyuz-derived Zond *was* launched by a Proton (SL-12).  This
>>may be the source of the confusion.

>I thought it was the SL-13, but I don't have a reference here.  Can anyone
>support or correct the following:

>Proton 3 stage       SL-12      D1
>Proton 4 stage       SL-13      D1e

My data shows the Proton 4 stage version being launched first, in 1967, to earn
the SL-12 designation.  The 3 stage D-1 was launched a year later and designated
the SL-13.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
    "This Universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on
              government contract."
                -RAH

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 15:42:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom's suggestion (was Pat's plan)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

[much blithering deleted]

>You needn't reply.  Unless you've changed you mind, any more on this won't
>mean much.

Quite true, Tommy, but then none of it has meant anything except for
your inane attempts to stroke your own ego, anyway.

Guess this joins your mail.  Goodbye.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1993 12:54:44 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1tovt2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy Banks) writes:
>In article <1tiqpo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>New Zealand, Australia,  and the Philippines did not pay for
>>their defense either,  but their economies are in the  S***TEr.
>>
>
>    Pat - go read a history book, will you? The above statement
>    betrays terrible ignorance....and is insulting to the many
>    who died. A little bit of current affairs might be nice too.
>


Before my mailbox fully overflows with outraged aussies and kiwis,
I guess i should clarify my remarks.  I was referring to the
Post WW2 era.  Specifically,  the 50's - 90's.  The Australians
regiments fought amazingly well in Both world wars,  as did Indian
and African regiments.  Australia and NZ both also contributed
during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but the fact is neither country
was supporting Serious deep water Navy capabilities,  nor a
Nuclear weapons program,  nor serious extra territorial military
programs.  WW1 and 2 are over.  My remarks are aimed at the current.

PS  as for current history,  my understnading is australia is still
suffering from a serious recession.  High intereswt rates and
heavy foreign borrowing and depressed commodity markets have been
a drag on the economy for the last 5 years.  If something
has changed lately, I'll have to look again.

pat

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 621
------------------------------