Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO652.ZIP/V16NO652

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Tue,  1 Jun 93 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #652
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  1 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 652

Today's Topics:
                  LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 31)
                May Meeting of Canadian Space Society
                     Mining on the Moon? (2 msgs)
                          Moon Base (6 msgs)
                          non-solar planets
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
        Story Musgrave (Was: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer)
                          The crew is toast
         The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave) (2 msgs)
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (3 msgs)

    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, 31 May 1993 12:14:54 GMT
From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC <[e-mail]>
Subject: LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 31)
Newsgroups: sci.space

               PRESS RELEASE

              LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST

                                         May  31, 1993
                           NASDA HQ, Tokyo

   National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) successfully
   conducted a captive firing test of LE-7 engine  for H-II launch
   vehicle  at the Yoshinobu  (H-II)  Launch Complex, Osaki Range,
   Tanegashima Space Center(Address: Minamitane-machi, Kumage-gun,
   Kagoshima 891-37).


          Ignition time:     14:00, May 31, 1993

          Firing Duration:   100 seconds

          Firing Condition:  Good

         ****************************************************

   For further information,  please  contact  the following:
   Yoko Inomata,  Akiko Suzuki/NASDA Public Relations Office, Tokyo
   Phone:[phone], Fax:[phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:00:05 GMT
From: "Kieran A. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: May Meeting of Canadian Space Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

The May meeting of the Canadian Space Society
will be held tonight, May 31, at 7:30 P.M. The location is
Room 252, at 155 College Street in Toronto (south
side of College, just west of University Avenue). This
month's meeting features a talk by sci.space guru Henry Spencer,
who will be reviewing the "Making Orbit '93" conference that
he attended a few months ago in California. His talk will
examine many of the advanced earth-to-orbit launch systems
that are currently under development or being proposed for
development at the moment, including the DC-X single-stage-to-orbit
demonstrator. All are welcome to attend, and admission is
free of charge.
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:28:34 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mining on the Moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>> Titanium's limited use and high-tech reputation, as a metal, arises from
>> the extreme difficulty of refining and working with it, not the rarity of
>> titanium ores.
>
>That difficulty disappears on the moon (and elsewhere in space), since there
>won't be any annoying oxygen or nitrogen to contaminate the titanium.  :)

Alas, it's not that easy -- almost anything contaminates titanium. :-)
The SR-71 project had considerable trouble with the cadmium in the plating
on ordinary wrenches, as I recall.

Also, there will be plenty of oxygen, since the titanium is already
intimately associated with it in ilmenite and similar minerals.  The
problem on Earth is getting the last little bit of oxygen *out*, not
keeping more from getting in.

And titanium is a pain even if contamination is not an issue.  It's very
hard and wears out cutting bits in a shocking hurry.

Unless you really, really need titanium's special properties, aluminium
is a whole lot less hassle.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 19:29:36 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mining on the Moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Alas, it's not that easy -- almost anything contaminates titanium. :-) The
> SR-71 project had considerable trouble with the cadmium in the plating on
> ordinary wrenches, as I recall.
>
> Also, there will be plenty of oxygen, since the titanium is already
> intimately associated with it in ilmenite and similar minerals.  The
> problem on Earth is getting the last little bit of oxygen *out*, not
> keeping more from getting in.

Cadmium and other protective coatings won't be required in space.  Also,
isn't a significant part of the problems with working titanium due to
forming, welding, or other high-temperature treatments?  These problems, at
least, would be eliminated.

> And titanium is a pain even if contamination is not an issue.  It's very
> hard and wears out cutting bits in a shocking hurry.

Hmmm, since titanium reacts quite happily with carbon, would diamond coated
cutters be useless (except at low speeds)?  :-/

> Unless you really, really need titanium's special properties, aluminium is
> a whole lot less hassle.

I agree.  Also, magnesium is fairly common on the moon, and will be more
useful than on Earth (no corrosion of flammability problems if used
externally).

There's also the potential for alloys that can be prepared in lunar gravity
but not in Earth gravity, and still more that can be made in zero-g.  There
are also alloys that aren't used or even studied much on Earth due to
problems with atmospheric interaction (both in forming and use).  Who knows,
calcium alloyed with bismuth and lithium (for example) could turn out to be
an important material.

I think metallurgists are going to have fun.  :)

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 14:47:24 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:
>
>> ...but most importantly *they would have no application to space
>> processing*. Therefore they are a waste of time and money unless they can
>> stand on their own economic merit.
>
>That's like saying that fossil fuel technology was a waste of time, and that
>early humans should have gone directly to solar or fusion energy.  Do you
>really think that the technology to mine and process an asteroid in zero-g
>can be developed for a similar price tag and time frame as a lunar base?  I
>expect the asteroid project would require a decade or so of LEO missions just
>to figure out a processing system that will work in zero-g, and there would
>probably be a lot of failed missions (more expense).

Sorry, fossil stood on it's own economic merits from the very beginning.
Solar and fusion still haven't. I do think that asteroid and comet processing
can be developed for similar expenditures as a lunar base. I also agree
that it'd take at least a decade, probably longer, to do that development.
But it would be cheaper than trying to support a lunar base going through
*it's* teething pains for a similar time. LEO is cheaper than Luna. The
Russians already have an operating base, and we can visit with the Shuttle
for a week, or longer with the LDO pallets, not to mention unmanned expendible
launches or the fabled DC-1. And a few comet and asteroid prospecting probes
are cheap indeed.

Unless you can show that a Lunar base has more economic return than open
space processing, all of your arguments boil down to looking for your
car keys under the streetlamp. Experience on Luna doesn't translate to
operations in open space.

>> That depends on where you start your telepresence development. If you do it
>> in LEO, the delays are even less than at Luna. And if you do it in the next
>> room, with suitable delay lines, it's cheaper still. There's nothing about
>> telepresence or closed cycle environment development that *requires* bases
>> on the Moon, or even in orbit.
>
>True.  However, a lunar base would be a major incentive for R&D in
>teleoperation.  If the political decision is made to build a lunar base,
>money will be made available for teleoperation R&D, since it should reduce
>the final cost.  The same is true for asteroid mining, but the total project
>cost may be so much higher that the project won't get approval.  :-/

I don't think the costs would be higher, and I certainly am not sanguine
that either will be done for political reasons. If there's no economic
benefit, I don't expect political reasons will carry the day. The Cold
War is over, and with it the incentive to score political points with
space spectaculars. Something with the cost of Hubble is about the top
limit the government is likely to fund in the next several decades. That
won't get you a moonbase, but it could buy a starter comet program for
volatiles for in space refueling. And *that* could make the next step
in open space mining feasible.

>> As I pointed out, oil companies, and others, are already operating in
>> extreme environments even though lower grade temperate climate ores remain.
>> That answered your objection.
>
>Yes and no.  A mining company might find the lower cost of mining/processing
>higher grade ore in a harsh environment pays for the extra R&D and other
>costs. However, much of the R&D has already been done and paid for, and the
>uncertainty is relatively low.  Zero-g mining/processing is essentially
>completely new technology.  Try getting funding for a mine at the bottom of
>the ocean, based on technology that isn't even firmly on a drawing board.

Get the Law of the Sea treaty repealed and more companies would invest
in deep sea mining. Frankly right now there's no incentive to invest
in sea bottom mining because there's no legal framework for the companies
to keep the rewards of their investments. In addition, the rigors of the
environment 7 miles down are much harsher than those 200 miles up. Keeping
1 atm *in* is a lot easier than keeping several thousand *out*.

Also, when oil exploration moved into the Arctic, the experience *wasn't*
there, yet the companies paid to develop it because the high grade was
worth more than the cost of extracting from the low grade fields in the
temperate areas.

>>+ 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.
>>
>> I agree, but a Lunar base is "in orbit" only in a pedantic sense. That's
>> why we need stations in orbit, to generate the traffic to make commercial
>> ventures palatable.
>
>Yes, and the construction of those stations would help justify the lunar
>base. The savings from not hauling all the mass from Earth probably wouldn't
>be enough to repay the investment, but it would help, and the mines would
>still be there for other construction projects.

"We lose money on each sale, but we make it up in volume." Sorry, I don't
buy that.

>> Delta-v requirements to some near Earth asteroids and comets are lower than
>> injection into Lunar orbit and landing. The processing facility can be
>> built in LEO mostly by short lag teleoperations from major components
>> assembled on the ground. This course is cheaper and more direct than adding
>> the unnecessary complication of a Lunar base.
>
>I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that the total cost would be lower.

Getting rid of that dive into, and climb out of, a gravity well is a big
cost win. The delta-v has to be delivered quickly, and that means high
power engines and lots of reaction mass. In space transport, the delta-v
can be built up slowly using much cheaper low power/low reaction mass
propulsion. Staying away from gravity wells is a big cost win. Structures
need only be strong enough to deal with tiny forces, not multiple G launches
and landings.

>> Metals and silicates are available from asteroids that are energetically
>> less expensive to reach than the lunar surface. Add in the unavailable on
>> the Moon hydrogen and carbon from comets and certain classes of asteroids,
>> and you have an unbeatable combination. There's no material on the Moon
>> that we can't get elsewhere, and without the penalty of fighting that
>> gravity well twice.
>
>Are the metals and silicates in a form as easy to process?  The moon's
>minerals are already finely ground, and differentiated to some degree.
>Extracting an asteroid's aluminum, although feasible, might be relatively
>expensive.  Worse, it might require a lot of R&D time, which would make
>aluminum unavailable for a long time.  :-/

We don't have much data yet on the asteroid population, and even less
on comets. From the meteorite samples we do have, however, we find that
almost pure metals are available for the cutting on some bodies. Once
we're freed of the necessity of hauling it's mass out of a steep gravity
well, aluminum holds little advantage as a structural material over good
old nickel-iron. From what little we know of comets, we can expect to find
abundant water, methane, and ammonia. Not only does that supply us with
fuels in plenty, but if we find sources of potassium, we'll have the
bulk constituents needed to support life. In time we may be treated to
the sight of steam powered cast iron rockets speeding past leisurely
solar sailing ships for those time critical shipments; and hot oxy-hydrogen
torch ships screaming past those on military missions where cost is no
object. But few will bother to stop at Luna, climbing in and out of that
well is too expensive for a visit to a slag heap of light metals and
silicates.

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, 31 May 1993 15:05:20 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Mills) writes:
>> 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
>
>   Remember Jamestown: a colony in a malarial swamp near fertile high ground.
>It survived for about 90 years because it was on the water, and had easier
>transportation back to England. A Moon Base would have a similar advantage
>over Mars or asteroids.


Only if it could import Negros and grow tobacco. Remember the story of
Virginia Dare, the first Englishwoman to be born in the New World?
Her colony simply disappeared between voyages from England. Jamestown went
through "the starving" when the ships from England failed to return on
schedule. The colony wasn't self sufficient, it was an appendage of
the English mercantile explorers. It wasn't until the fertile areas were
settled that English presence in the New World became secure.

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, 31 May 1993 15:10:24 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ward Paul) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gopinath Kuduvalli) writes:
>
>>Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence
>>on the moon, mars or wherever in space?
>
>I dunno.  What are the reasons for long term permanent presence here on earth?
>I guess we live here.  So why not live on the moon, mars, or wherever in space.
>
>(To put it another way, this whole discussion must closely resemble what
>Columbus must have gone through, trying to get funding to reach India.)

India/Cathay were known to exist, they offered spices and silks unavailable
in Europe. Trade had existed for a long time, but it was dangerous and
slow because it travelled overland. Columbus offered a way to lower the
cost of the spice trade. Instead he found the Bahamas, and spring break.
He died penniless and in prison. Party animals never prosper. So it goes.

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, 31 May 1993 14:53:02 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Mills) writes:
>>Closed cycle environments can be tested on Earth or in LEO much more
>>easily than on Luna. Luna isn't a realistic simulation of either deep
>>space or Mars environments, so testing on the Moon is no more relevant
>>than testing in the Mojave or LEO. Unless we have real reasons for going
>>to Luna, testing doesn't cut it as a reason to spend the money.
>
>   Any closed cycle environment is going to rely on biology.  We really
>know nothing about how Earth life will react to Mars gravity. LEO can only
>give you zero-g, unless you put up a big centrifuge. (The Space Station,
>at least before the current redesign, included a small centrifuge, which
>could handle some biology testing, but not a whole biological closed system.)
>The Moon at least gives you low gravity: if Earth life can do well in long
>term lunar gravity, it's a good bet it can handle Mars gravity.

Luna offers 1/6 G, but any convienent G, from micro-G to multiple Gs,
can be generated on a rotating space platform. Any amount of sunlight,
from none to continous, is available in space, but on Luna you are trapped
into the lunar cycle of 2 weeks sun and 2 weeks darkness. Luna seems a
one note pony when it comes to life science experiments under the highly
variable conditions found in the solar system.

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: 31 May 93 16:53:37 GMT
From: Gopinath Kuduvalli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ward Paul) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gopinath Kuduvalli) writes:
>
>>Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence
>>on the moon, mars or wherever in space?
>
>I dunno.  What are the reasons for long term permanent presence here on earth?
>I guess we live here.  So why not live on the moon, mars, or wherever in space.
>
>(To put it another way, this whole discussion must closely resemble what
>Columbus must have gone through, trying to get funding to reach India.)
>--

Eventually, if a long-term permanent settlement is established on the moon
(say), the question "why moon?" might be moot in the minds of those that are
settled there. Who knows, a moon (/mars/add your favorite planet here)
"colony" might be even fighting for independence from Earthly colonizers
in some distant future.

However, the question is: what are the percieved benefits of long-term
settlement on the moon *now*? Without an incremental commercial or political
advantage, it is hard to convince anyone to venture into a settlement on
the moon, mars, or wherever in space. (I think of a few possibilites
though.)

>Paul

Cheers,

-- Gopi

[e-mail]     MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates

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

Date: 31 May 1993 17:58:53 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

It is also a comment on the industrial infra-structure at the time,
That columbus's first voyage went with 3 ships and returned with
one,  but his second voyage had 17?  ships and his third voyage
had 74?

The equivalent in Apollo, would have been 1 year after Armstrong landed,
30 "Nova" class vehicles would have followed up with a permanent
base.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 14:59:37 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: non-solar planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <1ualv3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>>Actually does the Sun Have Rings or disks?  If IRAS has imaged them
>>around numerous stars,  then have we any way to see if there is
>>one around Sol?  If we could measure the behavior of our own Ring,
>>it may give a good characterization for other solar rings.

>The Sun does indeed have a ring of matter about it, but the majority of that
>mass seems to have coalesced into a few dozen clumps...

Think, though: how much mass was in the Beta Pictoris disk, or the Vega
disk?

I'll have to chekc the papers, but I'm starting to remember a discussion
I heard a while back (that may have been published itself)...
--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: 31 May 1993 14:32:03 -0400
From: James Wetterau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jane Beckman) writes:
>Of course, I doubt that folks have allowed that if they can
>put a billboard in space, they probably can also put a
>billboard-killer in space, send up something that would turn
>the orbiting advertisement into small shreds of debris.  I'm
>sure you could find LOTS of people willing to donate a few
>hundred dollars to such a good cause!  It could give a whole
>new aspect to the concept of monkey-wrenching.

Actually, I see no reason why that same group of people couldn't just put a
*blank* billboard right in front of the offending commercial billboard.  It
would be very frustrating to the people behind the ad and very discouraging
to anyone hoping to put up a billboard;  all this assuming that the whole
process is unregulated by any national governments, the U.N., etc.  Now, if
it be regulated, there would be many other means of blocking a billboard and
undoubtedly 100's of millions of people (People who don't think that
space marketing would be wonderfull, sp) trying to do so.
                                  ^

Clearly this thing has a *lot* of obstacles in its path before anyone does
it.

James Wetterau ([e-mail])
"There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent."
 -- G. B. Trudeau

--
                |    Hold fast to the spirit of youth
    James Wetterau, Jr.    |    let years to come do what they may!
    [e-mail]        |    - Philolexian Society Toast

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 05:08:58 GMT
From: "Robert B. Love " <raptor![e-mail]>
Subject: Story Musgrave (Was: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>     Story has the following degrees:
>
>     1) B.S. Math and Statistics (Syracuse)
>     2) M.B.A (UCLA)
>     3) B.A. Chemistry (Marietta College)
>     4) M.D. (Columbia, surgical internship at UK Medical Center)
>     5) M.S. Physiology and Biophysics (University of Kentucky)
>     6) M.A. Literature (University of Houston)
>
> And, as if this wasn't enough, he has flown more than 17,000 hours in
> 160 types of aircraft.

And he has something like 6 kids.  Damn overachiever!

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 21:14:31 GMT
From: "Ian R. Ameline" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The crew is toast
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1u2rpp$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>>I suppose, the STS crew compartment could be arranged with a
>>drogue chute for not a lot of penalty,  slow down witht he drogue
>>to appx 100 mph  and then the crew bail out individually,
>>or count on toughing out the impact and un-ass the sinking
>>vehicle at high speed.  But not my idea of fun.
>
> Third, consider terminal speed of a falling human body is
>only about 125 MPH.  Would you be willing to 'tough out' a bailout
>from an aircraft without a chute?  I wouldn't -- yet you're talking
>about 'landing' (crashing) your escape capsule at almost that high a
>speed.

   Certainly an impact with anything other than a huge airbag at 100 mph is not
going to be survivable. All slowing it down to 100 will do is to make the bodies
easier to identify. Hitting water at 100 is roughly equivalent to hitting concrete
at 100 -- actually, I suspect concrete is more compressible than water.

   But all you need to do is slow the darn thing down enough so you can
get out of it -- the emergency chute I wear when flying aerobatics
weighs in at about 10 pounds. I expect that if I ever have to use it (lets hope
not), By the time I pull the ripcord, I may already be heading towards the
ground at upwards of 100 knots.

Regards,                              | "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the
Ian Ameline,                          |  most important operating system, and
C-Set++ Development,                  |  possibly program, of all time."
IBM Canada PRGS Laboratory.           |                        --- Bill Gates

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

Date: 31 May 1993 15:35:50 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>
>>    Story has the following degrees:
>>
>>     1) B.S. Math and Statistics (Syracuse)
>>     2) M.B.A (UCLA)
>>     3) B.A. Chemistry (Marietta College)
>>     4) M.D. (Columbia, surgical internship at UK Medical Center)
>>     5) M.S. Physiology and Biophysics (University of Kentucky)
>>     6) M.A. Literature (University of Houston)
>>
>> And, as if this wasn't enough, he has flown more than 17,000 hours in
>> 160 types of aircraft.

>And he has something like 6 kids.  Damn overachiever!


I read in the book "The Making of an Ex-Astronaut", by Brian O'Leary,
that the astronauts used to refer to Musgrave's over-achievement  as
the "Musgrave Maneuver". Gosh!!! And he still have six kids!!! That is
really impressive! I have the feelling that he was also in the military,
is it true?

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

Date: 31 May 1993 12:04:20 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.space

So are his kids going to write a book?  "Daddy Dearest" is available.

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 13:13:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

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

|> [...]
|> The movie is even worse than the book.

I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth".  In it he
traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through
the Nazi ricket program through the space race with the Russians to the Apollo
landings (the chapter describing the last 15 minutes before touchdown
is worth the price of the book).  Anyway, he points out a number of
inaccuracies in the "Right Stuff" version of the events.

--Brian

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 16:59:00 GMT
From: kate <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth".  In it he
>traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through
>the Nazi ricket program...

You mean those Nazi bastards conspired to deprive their poor astronauts
of Vitamin D along with everything else?



Kate


Oh - right - never mind...

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

Date: 31 May 1993 17:41:41 GMT
From: "Jeffrey A. Del Col" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In a previous article, [e-mail] (kate) says:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth".  In it he
>>traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through
>>the Nazi ricket program...
>
>You mean those Nazi bastards conspired to deprive their poor astronauts
>of Vitamin D along with everything else?


Why of course; there wasn't much room in those V-2s so they had to mold
their astronauts to fit, nicht wahr?

J. Del Col

>
>
>Kate
>
>
>Oh - right - never mind...
>
--
Jeff Del Col      *   "The night, it teems with moon and promise."
A-B College       *                       --Krazy Kat--
Philippi, WV      *
                  *

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 652
------------------------------