Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO653.ZIP/V16NO653

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

Date: Tue,  1 Jun 93 05:15:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #653
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  1 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 653

Today's Topics:
                           Baikonur or Bust
     Can we use HST to look at possible Jupiter/comet collision?
    Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
                      Let's Build a Space Ship!
           Liberal President murders spaceflight? (5 msgs)
                              Moon Base
                          non-solar planets
                            Sagan / TAPPS
              The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (3 msgs)
                       What the latest on DCX?

    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, 1 Jun 93 11:56:20 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Baikonur or Bust

I'd like to visit a Russian launch complex this summer.

What complexes are there (and where) besides Baikonur ?

I'd be most obliged if anyone could help me with any
information about arranging visits, travel details,
getting launch schedules, maybe finding a regular
tour group, or any stories (cautionary or otherwise).

Thanks much   /Fred

--
* Fred Baube (tm)   * Quick Quiz: "Liberalism rejects ideological
* GU/MSFS/88        * struggle and stands for unprincipled peace,
* [e-mail] * thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine
* #include \        * attitude and bringing about political degen-
*   <disclaimer.h>  * eration." -- Mao Ze-Dong or Ronald Reagan ?

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 23:16:41 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we use HST to look at possible Jupiter/comet collision?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Stupendous Man,
[e-mail] writes:
>  So, the WF/PC can take, at most, one picture every two minutes.
>That's pretty slow for a high-speed impact, I'd say.  Don't
>forget that HST will pass behind the Earth every forty minutes
>or so, so one can get, say, twenty pictures, then a gap of forty
>minutes, then twenty pictures, then a gap, etc.  And the gap
>MIGHT come at impact of the biggest piece.

I understand the two minute per frame limitation. (If the collision is
incandescent as you suggest that may well be shorter than its thermal
time constant anyway.) That is something with which we will have to live.
What I'm advocating is that HST be used to its best capability in hope
that an impact can be imaged. There may be more than one opportunity to
do so if your earlier estimates prove to be correct. Given the
probability of success (which will depend upon the future precise
determination of the circumstances) one should ask: is there something
that HST could more valuably observe at the same time? I think it is too
bad that HST couldn't bear upon Saturn much sooner than it did after the
storm was discovered. Inertia due to notification time can't be as big a
problem in this case.

I'm still willing to bet money (say US$10.) at 2-1 that, if there is a
chance that a collision will occur in apparition, HST will be pointed at
it. One good picture would fully justify a fair bit of telescope time. My
conjecture is based purely on my knowledge of human nature, not on the
suitability of the instrument.

Leigh

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 01:33:52 GMT
From: "Doug S. Caprette" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
>[e-mail] wrote:
>: >      IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet,
>: > and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may
>: > collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994.  The surviving
>: > pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on
>: > short-period heliocentric orbits.
>
>: Is there likely to be any visible effect on Jupiter? (My gues
>: is "no" - not even HST will see anything, nucleii prob less than
>: mile across=tiny compared to Jupiter).
>
>Will P/S-L approach Jupiter's visible or invisible hemisphere?

And my guess would be yes.  The entry of the comet fragments into  the
atmosphere might not be directly visible, but I wouldn't be surprised to see
some visible features in the atmosphere forming from the event.
--
[e-mail]
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A path is laid one stone at a time" -- The Giant

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

Date: Tue,  1 Jun 93 01:50:10 PDT
From: Robert M Cosby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's Build a Space Ship!
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I read that article twice and each time I -SWEAR- I heard the sound
of a therimin in the background!!! Kinda went:  OOooooooooeeEEEEEEeeeeoooo...
    Really. Trust me. Swear on my pinkie.
        Coz

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 22:10:46 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


>On 27 May 1993 22:36:59 [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) wrote:
>> 1. If they're not economically viable, then _WHY_ did they need
>> to be outlawed (fuel reprocessing)?

>Because they generate too much hazardous waste, making the risks
>far outweigh the benefits.

Not according to what I've read.  The waste production is about the
same as any other nuclear facility.  The problem is that once you go
to fuel reprocessing, you have established a plutonium economy.  Think
about bombs.

>> 2. Banning fuel reprocessing while at the same time more stringent
>> waste disposal requirements are being made is a de-facto limitation
>> to the point of banning nuclear power........................

>What would you have us do, dump it all over the place and
>contaminate everything for thousands of years?!  It's a good
>thing we had those restrictions or we'd be in the same sorry
>shape as Russia today!

Nonsense.  This has nothing to do with fuel reprocessing.

>> .................................... And it worked: noone's started
>> construction on a new plant in years and years.

>Thank God!

Seems like *everyone* talking about nuclear power these days doesn't
know much about it, on both the pro and con sides.

--
"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, 31 May 1993 22:23:56 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

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

>>I'd suggest you look up a report done in 1977 (by Ford (the company)
>>under the management of Mitre).  It's several hundred pages studying
>>the technical, safety, and economic aspects of nuclear power,
>>breeders, etc.  Your preceding paragraph is full of misconceptions
>>about the economic viability of breeder reactors at current market
>>prices for uranium, along with misconceptions about a lot of other
>>things.  Oh, and in case you didn't know it, both Britain and France
>>already had enrichment facilities long before Carter came into office.

>1. If they're not economically viable, then _WHY_ did they need
>to be outlawed (fuel reprocessing)?

I wasn't aware they had been actively outlawed.  Have they been?  If
so, the reason is real simple.  Nuclear proliferation and the threat
of same in a large plutonium economy (which is what recycle gives
you).

>2. Banning fuel reprocessing while at the same time more stringent
>waste disposal requirements are being made is a de-facto limitation
>to the point of banning nuclear power. And it worked: noone's started
>construction on a new plant in years and years.

The two things are unrelated.  Fuel recycling doesn't make the waste
disposal problem any more tractable.  For lots of detail on why
nuclear recycle doesn't make economic or policy sense, see _Nuclear
Power Issues and Choices_.  I will just quote from the conclusion with
regard to nuclear recycle, which starts on page 333.

"There is no compelling national interest to be served by
reprocessing.  There appears to be little, if any, economic incentive
and it is unlikely that reprocessing and recycle could proceed without
subsidy.  The noneconomic benefits of reprocessing are small: fuel
supply for LWRs would be little enhanced; present experience with
reprocessing or plutonium stockpiles has little present value since
the introduction of breeders is sufficiently far in the future and
uncertain; and contemporary waste management risks with reprocessing
are likely larger than possible reductions in long-term hazards from
disposal.  Health hazards and new accident risks argue against
reprocessing.  But the most severe risks from reprocessing and recycle
are the increased opportunities for the proliferation of national
weapons capabilities and the terrorist danger associated with
plutonium in the fuel cycle."

"In these circumstances, we believe that reprocessing should be
deferred indefinitely by the United States and no effort should be
made to subsidize the completion or operation of existing facilities.
The United States should work to reduce the cost and improve the
availability of alternatives to reprocessing world-wide and seek to
restrain separation and use of plutonium."

--
"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, 31 May 1993 22:34:34 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>I was talking about fuel reprocessing, not breeders.

>Reprocessing takes the more hazardous materials out of fuel rods,
>greatly _reducing_ the amount of material that needs to be treated
>as high-level radioactive waste.

Unfortunately, simple volume of waste is not the most appropriate
measure to use.  The issue is heat load placed on the surrounding
geological disposal site.  While the volume of high-lelvel waste is
reduced with recycle, several new species of highly radioactive
material are produced which must be disposed of.  The heat load placed
on the storage site if you assume recycle is higher than if you
dispose of the unrecycled fuel.  Additionally, fuel recycle generates
a lot more process waste than the fabrication of 'new' fuel rods from
uranium.

>By banning reprocessing, the amount of waste is increaced. And it's
>not in rad waste storage areas. It's on abandoned railroad track probably
>very close to your house.

Just a *little* disingenuous, wouldn't you say, Phil?

>It's disingenuous to pass laws that say that

>1. Waste can't be recycled and reduced in volume

Volume isn't the issue.

>2. Something must be done with it.

Yes, but this problem is no less tractable without recycle than with
it.  In fact, it is probably less risky and disposal is easier to
solve if we do not recycle.

>E-mail me when you're interested in really talking about it instead
>of creating the straw man that Phil wants to destroy the Earth.

Phil, you don't seem any more predisposed to reasonable discussion,
judging by what you've written.

>Until then, you're in my kill file. I would advise everyone else to do
>the same.

Bad taste.  In any case, I have a kill file of one -- I'd like to keep
it that small or smaller.

--
"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: 31 May 1993 21:14:48 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I never read very heavily on the Breeder reactor thing, other then
how it was keeping a certain senator from the south alive politically,
but I believe Carter's hesitation on it, besides, avoiding a large
plutonium economy, was that Used Fuel Rods,  become Low level,
Medium Life (<200 yr)  Hazards.  Plutonium becomes  Long life
hazards < 600 yr....

The High energy stuff burns off in 8-20 yrs of soaking in a wet farm,
but the Long life stuff  makes it a little more in-tractable.
I think part of the thinking was.  Uranium  is fairly common
in nature,  plutonium is fairly uncommon in nature.  Let's stick
with the stuff we normally tend to find.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 08:02:17 GMT
From: Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Power Issues and Choices_.  I will just quote from the conclusion with
>regard to nuclear recycle, which starts on page 333.
>
>"There is no compelling national interest to be served by
>reprocessing.  There appears to be little, if any, economic incentive
>and it is unlikely that reprocessing and recycle could proceed without
>subsidy.  The noneconomic benefits of reprocessing are small: fuel
>supply for LWRs would be little enhanced; present experience with
>reprocessing or plutonium stockpiles has little present value since
>the introduction of breeders is sufficiently far in the future and
>uncertain; and contemporary waste management risks with reprocessing
[...]

   I agree that the anti-nukes have some good arguments, but some of
them take it to a whole 'nother level and are not even willing to
entertain the notion that one day nuclear power could be safe, economical,
and effective. Gore's attitude towards Nuke power reminds me of
Bush's attitude toward fetal tissue research. Gore seems to want to
silence any further work on future nuclear technology (The Wall
Street Journal had an article on him the other day about his attempts
to censor data from the scientific community which contradicts some
of his esoteric ideas)

   The Clinton administration "...constitutes a move away from
nuclear power" (their own words), so even DoE funding for fusion
research is being cut. I don't have a real problem with reliance
on fission power being reduced (or moves toward energy efficiency),
but nuclear power (fission and fusion) has real uses in outer
space.  Not all areas of the solar system have the compounds needed
for producing chemical fuels, wind power is obviously out of the picture,
and solar arrays aren't much better if you want to build a large
ship with lots of thrust.

   What ever happened to NERVA (or a modified version for space only), or
Nuclear Electric propulsion? Were they killed by the test ban, or
anti-nuke hysteria of the 60s/70s? (ugh, remember all the paranoia and hysteria
over Galileo's RTGs?)

   Will solar/wind power ever be able to deliver the performance
needed to make laser sail propulsion feasable? I've heard the power
requirements are pretty steep.

   As for the material you quoted, it has a lot of validity, but I don't see
how it's going to help the world situation. The way I see it, the nuclear
genie is out of the bottle. Sooner or later thr third world is going to
develop the technology to build both a-bombs and h-bombs -- it's only a matter
of time. Not to mention, that Europe and Japan already have plans to pursue
breeders, and there would be little we could do to stop nations like China
from pursuing them. Our time would be better spent developing defenses against
ballistic missile attacks, and helping to promote democracy and trade among
the nations of the world. Countries which trade heavily with each other rarely
try to anhillate their neighbors (customers).
or to quote someone famous, "when goods don't cross borders, armies will."
  The plutonium economy argument seems to be a little bit of a red
herring (like the terrorists-bomb-nuke-plant argument).

-Ray

p.s. What is going to happen to the Integral Fast Reactor?

>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

  This quote applies neatly to energy generation and nuke power. There are
always risks with every technology, the goal is to make risks acceptable.
Nuclear power may not be acceptable to a lot of people now, but I see no
reason why we can't eventually develop solutions to the problems it
has. Powered flight used to be dangerous, uncomfortable, and the risks
unacceptable (in my view). Ditto for the current Space Shuttle design.
 Personally, I'm more afraid of driving down the highway or walking
the streets of Baltimore than I am of having a nuclear plant in my
back yard.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 06:56:10 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> 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.

We have different opinions on that.  Several other people in this group share
my opinions, and I haven't seen anyone supporting yours.  Have you any
references for studies that show asteroid mining to be priced low enough to
be worth considering?

> 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.

It wouldn't be much cheaper once lunar Al-O production came on-line.

> And a few comet and asteroid prospecting probes are cheap indeed.

The probes are cheap; the price of actual processing of the materials is
completely unknown.  What sort of near-Earth objects could feasibly be moved
to LEO with existing technology?  If a nice nickel-iron or volatile-rich
chunk could be moved to LEO for the same cost as delivering an Al-O
processing system to Luna, then the asteroid mining route looks reasonable.

> 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.

It's not purely an economic return question.  Politics (fast, visible
project), initial cost, and initial risk (the luna project has fewer
unknowns) could be more important factors.  The government(s) doesn't need to
make a direct profit on the project (lunar or asteroid); it needs to show a
perceived value for the money.  If the lunar base provides the same impetus
for further development (especially private enterprise) as the asteroid
project, then the two projects have essentially equivalent returns on the
investment.  The asteroid project could provide more benefits for later
private projects in the long term, but that must be balanced with initial
cost and risk.  Considering all the non-economic factors, the moon could be a
better choice at this point in time. It might not be, but it shouldn't be
immediately ruled out by one factor that favours asteroidal mining.

> 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.
What's the dollar return on investment for the SSC?  That's a matter of
national prestige, investment in knowledge, and porkbarrelling.  Was Desert
Storm purely for economic and security reasons, or did prestige and internal
political factors play a significant role?  Was Apollo a result of security
(Cold War) reasons, or for prestige and internal politics?  An American
president could sell a lunar base project idea to the public if he thought it
would divert attention from other issues, keep the military contractor
economy going, etc.

> 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.

It could also provide the R&D necessary to put together a small lunar lander
that could test/prove the technology to process lunar dust.


>+ 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.

Oh, sorry.  I thought we were discussing government-funded projects, which
aren't required to show a positive balance each quarter.  :)

It's also nice to know that asteroid mining will definitely show black ink
right from the start.

> 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.

I agree completely.  I'm just not convinced that the technology to deliver
pure H2, O2, metals, and silicates to LEO from asteroids would be cheaper or
politically feasible at this time.

> 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.

It won't be too expensive if the light metals, silicates and volatiles (O2,
S) are easier/cheaper to extract and process, and energy and reaction mass is
cheap (as well as transport via efficient mass driver).

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 21:40:08 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: non-solar planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

I wrote:
>The only extra-solar planets whose existence is beyond dispute are one
>or two around pulsars...  They're also, last
>I heard, somewhat puzzling -- the supernova that produces the pulsar
>should blow them away.

Update:  I'm told, in private mail, that the theorists are sweating a
bit but have produced one or two plausible ways for pulsars to have
planets.
--
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 23:00:49 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sagan / TAPPS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:

>From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
>>
>> this, then, was used to trumpet the fact that nuclear war is bad
>> (OK, folks, hands up -- how many in the audience here were saying
>> to themselves, "Gee, I thought nuclear war was a splendid idea
>> until TAPPS proved their nuclear winter idea!").

>Well, don't forget that there were psychopathic
>statements from the Pentagon brass like
>"In the event of nuclear war, just lay a door over
>a hole in the ground and shovel some dirt over it."
>I believe this was said in testimony to Congress.

>    Duck and Cover !

Well, this makes more sense than going outside to watch!  Actually,
dirt is a fiarly good shielding material, so if you don't happen to
have a bomb shelter handy, this is probably the best advice you're
going to get.

--
"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: 1 Jun 1993 00:59:39 GMT
From: Chuck Shotton <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Claudio Egalon) wrote:
>

[Story story deleted]

>
>
> 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?

No. Story is (as far as NASA is concerned) a civvie. The ironic thing is,
he probably has more hours in T-38s than any 5 other astronauts combined,
but under NASA's new rules only MILITARY pilots can log flight time. Since
I know Story isn't allowed to fly the T-38s now, it's a good clue that NASA
doesn't consider him a military pilot. (Story is a member of the same
soaring club I'm in, so we get some good Story stories from time to time.)

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 23:54:47 GMT
From: "Eugene N. Miya" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.books

>[e-mail] (Claudio Oliveira Egalon) writes:
>> Neither me... By the way do you know any other reference that
>> would confirm or not what Tom Wolfe had written in his book
>> about  the above incident?

Well if you take a closer look at Wolfe, you will find references.
Among others is Betty Grissom's bio of Gus.  I recall a particularly
nice photo of them on a ski trip.  This book was published widely
and even Reader's Digestifed.  I would almost bet dollars to donuts the
LARC library has a copy.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>No, I don't know of any other references that would pry into the
>private lives of the Grissoms in this way.  If you're really that
>concerned about whether or not "The Right Stuff" is fact, I really
>think it would be more appropriate to dwell on the facts, rather
>than prying into (and disputing!) people's personal feelings.

Well, you could write Betty Grissom a nice letter on paper.

I suggested to one sci.s-er to write Yeager after the Voyager plane episode
and he got a nice letter back from Yeager's wife.  This assumes one has
enough tact to write such a letter (much harder to do with the deceased).

>> It matters so much because if he did not describe this incident
>> accurately, he might had carried out other inaccuracies to other
>> parts of his book.
>
>Friend, you don't seem to understand that there's a difference between
>distorting facts and simply interpreting, as best one can, emotions
>and feelings that only one person can truly know.  Wolfe wasn't in the
>motel room with the Grissoms.

No further comment on this.

Richard asks what are the Yeager's doing.  Probably, the big thing is
fighting Glennis' cancer.

The Press On book is interesting to me because there is a photo from the
Mt. Whitney trail, near Trail Crest.  In the background is Mt. Hitchcock which
I finally ran up last summer.  Miles of sand......  A local woman climber
was rescued by Yeager on Whitney which does not appear in the book; he was the
only person reasonably equiped to help her weather the night.  She literally
thought God has rescued her.  A few folk at EAFB might have thought otherwise.

We appear to share a similar geographic area of interest, and I will never
tell where some of Yeager's favorite Golden fishing spots are.  Hopefully,
we will never meet, and some degree of solitude will be preserved.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  Ames Library Committee
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:    Bongard, Pattern Recognition
            3 down 1 to go.

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

Date: 1 JUN 93 01:49:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.books

[e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>A local woman climber was rescued by Yeager on Whitney which does
>not appear in the book; he was the only person reasonably equiped
>to help her weather the night.  She literally thought God has
>rescued her.

What exactly does one have to do to spend the night on top of a
mountain with Chuck Yeager?

Heather
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 03:22:23 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.books

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>I suggested to one sci.s-er to write Yeager after the Voyager plane episode
>and he got a nice letter back from Yeager's wife.

What episode was this?  (Just curious)

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

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 22:48:07 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What the latest on DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>   What's the latest on the first launch of Delta Clipper X?  It has to be
>coming up pretty soon.

I just got back from ISDC and there I spoke with Dr. Gaubatz, the Program
Manager. There where a series of successful test firings at 30% thrust.

Exact dates of test flights is still pretty open so my .sig should be
regarded as only a rough guess.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------16 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 653
------------------------------