Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO625.ZIP/V16NO625

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 05:25:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #625
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 25 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 625

Today's Topics:
             Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (2 msgs)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (3 msgs)
                      Looking for ISDC roomates
                   Looking for rocketry software...
                          Moon Base (3 msgs)
                   Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
                        Rockwell News March 3
                  Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
                      Starlight onto Shuttle ??

    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: Tue, 25 May 1993 06:29:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) 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...
>
>Hmmm, I thought that the Foxbat and follow-ons did this, though.  Mach
>3 (roughly) sprint with an aluminum aircraft...

Nope.  The Foxbat is steel.  (Titanium is usually preferred for Mach 3,
because steel is so *heavy* unless you use exotic structures like the
XB-70's honeycomb panels, but steel will do in a pinch.)
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 May 1993 00:57:41 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>How about the XB-70?

>I don't think the Valkyrie did Mach 3.

The XB-70A-1 spent a total of 2 minutes at Mach 3.02 (it had some problems
with its structure that required redlining it at Mach 2.5 or less.)

The XB-70A-2 spent a total of 1hr 37min at Mach 3+. The accident that
destroyed it kept it form racking up many more hours at those speeds.
It's fastest speed was Mach 3.08, longest sustained Mach 3+ flight lasted
32 minutes.

>I also believe it used a fair amount of titanium for the hot bits.

The exterior of both aircraft was stainless-steel honeycomb-core. Most of
the interior that wasn't steel was aluminum.

>I can check when I get home, if you like.

"Wings", February 1986, pp. 10 - 35. :}

--
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..."   Plato, _Phaedrus_
-------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 24 May 1993 20:10:45 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Ken seems fixated on this measure of performance.
>I would suggest that we not look at mass returned,  but Useful
>Cargo Returned.
>In that Case we have,  1 LDEF,  4-5 SpaceLab flights,  and probably
>appx 100 GAS Cans.
>Not a lot for 12 years of missions.  The soviets probably have
>returned as much using capsula  vehicles and with soyuz.
>pat

Pat, you and others convienently forget recovery of several multimillion
dollar satillites, repair of solar max, hubble space telescope ops,
Leasesat, palapa, and westar, most of all having intelsat snub shuttle for
deployment of their satillite and then coming back to the US gov't to
request a mission to rescue their spacecraft. (I'd say this is a pretty
stellar record of space operations.)

Mass returned is important, while not all of these missions involved
mass returned from orbit, several did.  Other missions included options
to return the vehicles to earth for later launch.

ken

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

Date: 24 May 1993 20:21:41 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1tpt1o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>>Mr. Sherzer originally posted that he felt
>>>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>>>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.
>>I have been criticized for not making an appropriate comparison.
>>I would remind you that I retracted my statement about STS delivering
>>the most mass to orbit.  I have not heard Mr. Sherzer retract his
>>statement made above.
>Why should he retract it if it is true?

Because I'm gonna show that when you look at the mass the Saturn V delivered
to orbit and the mass that the shuttle system has delivered to orbit, that
the shuttle will surpass the Saturn V's record.

>>I am attempting to ascertain the validity of this statement in
>>an objective manner.  A basic tenet of the scientific method
>>is to approach issues as objectively as possible.  Several of
>>you appear unprepared to drop your subjectivity in this
>>analysis.

>Let me get this straight.  You're a doctor criticizing engineers over
>their objectivity when looking at the engineering of various vehicles?

NO!
I am a doctor who is criticizing some of your *lack* of objectivity.
Hence your desire to delete the mass of the orbiter from the calculation
of the total mass delivered to orbit by the STS.

>In another note, you criticize a comment Pat made because he couldn't
>understand the technical difficulty or degree of complexity of
>developing a new medical treatment, yet here you are, a doctor telling
>engineers that you understand their field better than they do.

I'm not aware that Pat is an engineer.  I apparently am more realistic
than you are about spaceflight.  I think some of you excessive shuttle
critics are overly enthusiastic about delta clipper.  In addition,
I really object to attempts to compare Delta Clipper and shuttle.
DC is not (to my knowledge) useful in the station program or in
medical applications.  I think only shuttle can fulfill the requirements
for medical studies on orbit.

>I do know Alan personally (we used to work at the same facility down
>here).  While I am of the opinion that some of his costing
>measurements for Shuttle costs vice the costs of some expendables are
>somewhat unfair in how they elect to measure, I would say that his
>engineering is sound; particularly when compared to that of a doctor
>of medicine.  One can look at the two systems (Shuttle and DC) and see
>the difference immediately.  Shuttle is *designed* to require
>extensive refurbishment after each and every flight and pushes its
>design to the limits.  DC does not do those things.  So you tell me
>what's reasonable to believe when comparing the two.

It doesn't take a B.S. in engineering to do budgeting calculations
buddy.  Perhaps, you should stop being critical of the orbiter and
prepare for your own cost-overruns in the DC-program.  I'm very
skeptical of the projections made by the DC-program.  They appear
overly simplistic and don't address several issues which have already
been raised by others on this net.

I seem to recall one post which went unanswered dealing with the
landing mode of the vehicle.  I.E. how does a pilot or computer
land the thing?

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 06:49:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ts2nl$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>>Ken seems fixated on this measure of performance.
>>I would suggest that we not look at mass returned,  but Useful
>>Cargo Returned.
>
>Pat, you and others convienently forget recovery of several multimillion
>dollar satillites

Paying several hundred million for that retrieval would never have been
worthwhile if it hadn't been a useful learning experience.  It would have
been cheaper to build and launch replacements.

That assumes you're thinking of Palapa/Westar.  If you're thinking of LDEF,
it would have been perfectly feasible to fly that mission one or two
experiments at a time -- the Russians do this on Mir.

>repair of solar max

Same comment.  Educational, but not cost-effective otherwise.

>hubble space telescope ops,
>Leasesat...

Why do you assume these things require the shuttle?  The most elaborate
in-space repair/salvage operations yet done -- Salyut 7 and Skylab --
did not use the shuttle.

>most of all having intelsat snub shuttle for
>deployment of their satillite and then coming back to the US gov't to
>request a mission to rescue their spacecraft...

Intelsat didn't "snub" the shuttle; Ronald Reagan kicked them off it.
The Intelsat 6 birds were designed for shuttle launch as one alternative.
They were among the losers when commercial payloads were thrown off the
shuttle after Challenger.

Nor would Intelsat have grieved for very long if NASA had refused the
rescue mission (or asked them to pay full price for it).  They have
launch failures now and then; they're prepared for it.  The rescue
was useful, but far from vital.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 23:16:51 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for ISDC roomates
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seds-l,sci.space

I'm looking for roomates for the ISDC (I already have a room.)  In particular
I need at least one person for Thursday night.  The room has two double beds,
and is $69/night to be evenly divided among the people staying.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 04:39:28 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for rocketry software...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mark pitcher 9208 U) writes:
>    A few years ago, I put together a simple program to help me
>determine what characteristics to expect from amateur rockets...

>    I have since found even more detailed information on rocket flight
>characteristics, and am putting together an even more elaborate program.

>    I am looking for other such computer programs that I can use as a
>guide, or to compare my results with.  If you know of such a program, please
>email me and tell me where I can find it.  Thanks.

I hope that you're planning to make *your* software available to others :-)
Sounds interesting.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 01:54:22 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> 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.

I agree that free space is a better environment for industry.  However, I
don't think that the leap in technology is the best choice at this time.  A
lunar base might be.  The scenario you hint at above requires the development
of new technology and techniques in a lot more areas than a Lunar base would.
Extraction and processing of minerals from an asteroid requires completely
different techniques, and will undoubtedly face many unexpected problems.  On
the moon, you can use (modified) existing techniques.

>+ 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.

No?  The Al-O rockets sound quite useful for moving things around.
Hydrogen/oxygen rockets fueled from asteroids/comets would be better, but I
expect that developing the technology for that would require a lot more time
and funding.

> Few of the radiation protection or thermal shielding techniques would
> translate.

They probably would.  I can imagine improvements in small pumps and other
things associated with heat transfer.  Techniques developed for turning lunar
dust into shielding and structural elements should be useful, if not directly
applicable to orbital structures.  The handling of dust in a vacuum is
probably going to be troublesome, gravity or no gravity.

> Most of the processes would be totally different because of the gravity
> well and differences in ores.

That's in favour of building a lunar base first.  You can apply a number of
known techniques, rather than having to develop _everything_ all at once.  A
lunar mine can use draglines, hoppers, etc, with some modification from
off-the-shelf designs.  You can make buildings using good old concrete and
steel construction.  :)    A zero-g mine is going to be a risky project; not
something you want to base the success of _the_ major space development (the
first one is critical).

> Long term recycling in a closed environment, and teleoperation could both
> be developed just as easily in open space as on Luna.

No, it would probably be much easier to develop with a couple of seconds
round-trip communication lag than with several hours of lag, and much less
reliable communication links (greater precision and more expensive hardware
needed).

> Luna would offer the additional complication of dust being tracked into the
> habitat every time someone or something is moved through a lock.

Do you want me to make a list of equivalent problems that would be faced by
people in zero-g?    :-)

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

Sure, the profits are high and the costs of developing the technology is much
lower than that required for mining asteroids.  Much of the technology is
already proven (in cold Arctic winters).  Besides, are those companies
itching to develop those oil fields now, or are they itching to stake claims
for future exploitation?  :-/

> 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.

Asteroids hold valuable information about pre-planetary formation materials
and conditions.  The moon holds valuable information about the planetary
formation process, which the asteroids can't provide.  Both areas need to be
studied.

> Deep drilling is likely to be nearly as hard to do on the Moon as it is
> here on Earth.

It should be easier.  The pressure increases more gradually, and the interior
isn't as hot.  Besides, drilling in asteroids won't provide all the
information about the moon's geophysical processes.

> 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.

I think I'll cross-post this comment to sci.geo.geology.  We'll see if any
geologists or geophysicists have different opinions about the value of
studying the moon.

> 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.

Wouldn't it be better to have a large, shielded antenna (or rather, an array
of them) in solar orbit.  These could be made of--you guessed it--cheap lunar

aluminum.  :)

> As to interesting targets, I think most industrial space interests would
> rather investigate an Earth crossing comet or asteroid than the Moon.

Are they doing that today?  No?  Perhaps they're waiting until there's some
infrastructure first.  Inexpensive transfer vehicles and resources might make
the difference for a corporate proposal.  Some near-Earth space economic
activity (such as a Lunar base) would provide some markets for such things as
volatiles from asteroids.

The mere existence of a major space project reduces the risk of further
projects.  I get the impression that it is difficult to get funding/approval
for a project that is totally new and unproven.  Private investors might be
more likely to invest in a space manufacturing station if there were people
regularly working in orbit, and there were supplies and services in place for
them to use.

> 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.

Those are definitely interesting, but they'd be a lot more practical to
investigate if there was some infrastructure in place.  How about a nice
long-term plan for space exploration and development?  I suggest:

 Lunar resource extraction base (to provide Al & O2, and to develop
   vacuum and transfer vehicle technology)
 Space stations (to develop zero-g experience/technology, and a
   market for space resources)
 Near-Earth asteroid exploration/exploitation (to gain access to
   more resources, such as carbon and water)
 Mars exploration

I'd sprinkle small scientific missions through there as funding allows.  Al-O
boosters and radio/laser receivers on/around Luna could cut the cost of
planetary probes.

If exploitation of the near-Earth asteroids was successful, and markets for
space resources were developed (ie. some space stations), then the
exploration and exploitation of other asteroids, comets, and planetary bodies
might be carried out by private companies.  They're just waiting for someone
else to take the first big risk, and "break the path".  :)

> 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.

No, I see the Lunar resource extraction project as significantly cheaper than
a cometary resource extraction project (don't forget transportation of
resources), and one that provides a useful return, if not a profit.  BTW, is
water and hydrocarbons so much more valuable than O2, metals, and silicates?
You need those metals and silicates for the construction of structures to
hold people who will buy your volatiles.  :)

Profit is for private companies; government's responsibility is to provide
infrastructure and other support.  Even if the Luna project is unprofitable,
the return from the projects that become feasible due to its resources and
existence could provide a good return on the investment.

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 93 00:47:36 GMT
From: Gopinath Kuduvalli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

It seems to me there would be plenty of commercial opportunities if routine
travel to and from the moon could be established. For starters, imagine
a television broadcasting station from a moon base: Broadcasting news about
space hardware, space business, space personalities and their personal lifes
(1/2 ;-), commercials produced on the moon with moonscape pictures, etc.
There would be lots of companies willing to put their money to advertize on
such a television station, and lot more willing to invest in one.

Cheers,

-- Gopi

Dr. Gopi Kuduvalli         |e-mail: [e-mail]
MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates |Phone: [phone] (Office)
13800 Commerce Pkwy         |     [phone] (Home)
Richmond, BC V7C 1G4, CANADA     |Fax:     [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 07:07:35 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> You _could_ test a few aspects of a Mars mission there, but there is no
> reason why you _have_ to. The question becomes one of balancing the
> benefits of Lunar testing against their costs. At this point, the added
> costs would make a Mars mission impossibly expensive and set the timetable
> back long enough that politically the mission wouldn't be funded. So I
> think it's safe to say that the costs of Lunar testing outweigh the
> benefits.

Yes, for an Apollo-type Mars mission, a Luna base project would be a waste of
money.  However, if the goal is the development of space, including industry
and long-term communities, then it may make economic and political sense.

If keeping the voters interested is a critical factor, then I think a Lunar
base would manage to do so.  If it's on the nearside, I expect telescope
sales would skyrocket.  :)

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 06:38:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>Commercial justification for a return to the Moon is slim, but for
>>anything else -- Mars, asteroids, etc. -- it's nil.
>
>... this seems a little premature...

Certainly.  But we're talking about justifications *now*, not ones that
might perhaps possibly come into existence *after* considerable further
exploration.

>It seems there would be a large commercial justification in finding out
>what they actually are made of, since if our expectations are correct,
>they would make valuable targets for further exploration and/or exploitation.

Who's the customer for the exploitation?  Companies don't do exploration
unless they think there is a reasonable chance of profiting from it in
the long run.  Precise definitions of "reasonable chance" and "long run"
depend on the amounts of money involved... and the price tags attached
to NASA-style exploration (the only type with a track record) are so
ghastly that any rational company will want to see committed customers
(willing to pay high prices) before sinking any money into this.  There
aren't any.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 May 1993 07:16:41 GMT
From: Jeff Foust <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rockwell News March 3
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a recent article [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Atlantis modifications on track, drag chute on four weeks early
>[...]
>
>Rockwell's Palmdale Operations has developed an innovative
>plastic clean-room over the entire cargo bay of Atlantis.
>They call it the *greenhouse,* because the plastic covering is
>green.
>
>Technicians work inside the large enclosure to maintain system
>cleanliness.  The greenhouse eliminates having to build and certify
>individual small enclosures, called *glove boxes,* each time they
>work on the pneumatic or cryogenic systems or associated plumbing.
>Both approaches keep contamination out.

It helps keep all sorts of contaminants out.  When I was on a tour last week
of the facility in Palmdale when the Atlantis major mod is taking place (a tour
organized by the Caltech chapter of SEDS, Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space), the tour guide pointed out that several birds live
in the rafters of this rather large hangar and thus provide potential
sources for contamination. :-)

By the way, if you ever get the chance to go on a tour there while Atlantis
is there (and it'll be there for some time), do it.  It's about as close as
you'll ever get to a shuttle orbiter unless you work on one or you're
an astronaut.

--
Jeff Foust              [17 days!]    "Historical analogy is the last refuge
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech     of people who can't grasp the current
[e-mail]             situation." -- from _Red_Mars_ by
[e-mail]                    Kim Stanley Robinson

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 04:12:21 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

Before you seed life on Mars or elsewhere, be sure there is no natural
living or fossil life there.  Or else you'll trash an opportunity to
study it and expand biological science.  And that probably requires a
through inspection of Mars, by robot or man.  In all sorts of different
enviroments there.  Probably take a century of work.  By the time you
get done, you will probably contaminate Mars accidently with Earth life
anyway.

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

Date: 25 May 1993 02:55:41 GMT
From: victor yodaiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In article <1trd3o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>If Victor can't remember what he said from one day to the next, that may
>be understandable.  (I don't know him personally, so I don't know what
>he's taking that might cause his memory loss.)  However, I cited his

Tis but the passage of time. However, in this case, I did not forget (how could
I?). Mr. Cook asserted that space billboards would be a demonstration of
the vitality of capitalism. I made the error of using sarcasm, and
said that similarly, only technophopic communist luddites would balk at
the stirring sight of a smokestack pouring out industrial effluent.
Mr. Cook then made a remark in which he appeared to
claim that the leaders of the former Soviet Union were  technophobe communist
luddites. At that point, further comment seemed superfluous: I've never heard
of the Soviet Union as a technophobic or luddite enterprise before and such
astounding information should be left to stand on its own.

Just trying to keep the record clear.



--


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 04:01:38 GMT
From: OPIRG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In article <1trd3o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:

>However, I cited his
>phrase in my answer to him.  For you to strip that citation out of your
>reply, then later to claim that I was the first to use it, can only be
>explained as pure dishonesty on your part.
>
>Jeff Cook                                    [e-mail]

I did say "appears". I edited down the exchange on my previous
post, not in my last one where I responded to your comment disavowing
the view. I checked the thread, but missed Victor's statement (to err
is human, no?), then emailed him to double-check; aware that I may
have missed something, I merely said it *appeared* that you were the
first to use the expression.  And, apparently, I'm not the only one to
err, since you seem to believe the only possible explanation for my
post is "pure dishonesty".

I edit down posts to save bandwith. Try it; you'll like it.

Reid Cooper

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 12:31:00 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Starlight onto Shuttle ??

A Beeb World Service science show had a piece on an
incredible new plastic named "Starlight" that resists
heat in the thousands of degrees.  The inventor sug-
gested it might even work as a space vehicle coating,
replacing Shuttle-style tiles.

I've seen this stuff mentioned in UK papers, too, but
friends in the US tell me there's been nary a peep in
the US media on this material.  (NIH Syndrome ?)

Does anyone have the scoop ?  Is it a hoax ?  I sin-
cerely hope not, this stuff sounds positively amazing.
(And if it *is* a hoax, it's gone world-class ..)

--
* Fred Baube (tm)    * "Government had broken down.
* [e-mail]  *  I found the experience invigorating."
* 60 28' N  22 18' E *  -- Maurice Grimaud, Paris prefect of
* #include <disclaimer.h>                 police in May 1968

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 625
------------------------------