Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_1/v13_126.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 9KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/obgDln:00WBwQHBE5:>;
          Thu,  7 Feb 91 02:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <EbgDliu00WBw4H=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  7 Feb 91 02:06:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #126

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
              Re: Why man rate?
               Re: Liquid SCUBA
              Re: Expendable vs Shuttle
                escape rockets
               NASA Historian?

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 4 Feb 91 17:36:34 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Why man rate?
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <1991Jan29.205817.7984@zoo.
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Milo Rogers) writes:
>>firm plans to man-rate a variant of Titan III, specifically the IIIM, for
>>launch of MOL ...
>
>    Which was cancelled, after most of the design work had been
>completed, when money got tight and the US decided to go for the
>international prestige of a quick trip to the moon, instead of
>investing in a long-term, military presence in space.  Right?

Wrong.  MOL was cancelled long after Apollo got the go-ahead; I believe the
first lunar landing was imminent when MOL died.  (Don't remember exact dates.)
MOL was cancelled because unmanned military satellites had been surprisingly
successful and so the long-term military presence in space was already a
fact, which made it difficult to justify an expensive one-shot like MOL
(like Skylab, it had no provisions for in-orbit resupply) at a time when
the Vietnam war was squeezing all space budgets badly.
--
"Maybe we should tell the truth?"      | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Surely we aren't that desperate yet." |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 4 Feb 91 23:31:00 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!happy.colorado.edu![e-mail]
Organization: Colorado SuperNet Inc.
Subject: Re: Liquid SCUBA
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
 [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>>...and I should point out that although the trials on humans may not
>>have been done yet (it might be urban legend), the trials on rats and

> I think among possible health concerns would be effects on the natural
> surfactants in the lungs that keep them from collapsing in air.

On the contrary, I think the only human trials with fluorocarbons in the
lungs were to solve the insufficient surfactant problem in premature babies.
They fill the lungs and then empty them as much as they can, leaving the
fluorocarbons to hold the small air sacs open.  Premature babies often die
of collapsed lungs because they don't produce sufficient surfactants to
hold them open against surface tension.  I believe that the trials gave
the babies up to 72 hours extra life.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 2 Feb 91 18:58:15 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter Scott)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Subject: Re: Expendable vs Shuttle
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
> >>Actually, the Challenger breakup (it wasn't an explosion) would have been
> >>survivable had the astronauts been in a tough little capsule with parachutes
> >>rather than in a big fragile orbiter with wings.
> >
> >Especially when you realize that the capsule has a nice little rocket
> >to carry the crew to safety.
>
> My personal opinion is that the rocket isn't necessary, actually, unless
> we are talking about failures at extremely low altitude.

I was under the impression that the escape rocket (I assume we
are talking about the one used on the Saturn V) was intended to
be capable of pulling the CM clear of a pad accident.  That's
extremely low altitude by most standards (365').

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 2 Feb 91 22:58:45 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: escape rockets
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >>Actually, the Challenger breakup (it wasn't an explosion) would have been
>> >>survivable had the astronauts been in a tough little capsule with parachutes
>> >Especially when you realize that the capsule has a nice little rocket
>> >to carry the crew to safety.
>> My personal opinion is that the rocket isn't necessary, actually, unless
>> we are talking about failures at extremely low altitude.
>
>I was under the impression that the escape rocket (I assume we
>are talking about the one used on the Saturn V) was intended to
>be capable of pulling the CM clear of a pad accident.  That's
>extremely low altitude by most standards (365').

Actually, we weren't talking about the one on the Saturn V:  we were talking
about the Challenger accident, which took place at rather higher altitude.
See the original excerpt above. :-)

But while we're on the subject... an interesting fact recently came to my
attention.  The Mercury planners did not like the escape rocket, but felt
it was necessary because of the dreadful record of the Atlas at that time.
I wonder if they would have bothered had the Atlas been more reliable?
(Bear in mind that an escape rocket is itself a significant hazard.)  Had
the early history of large US rocketry been a bit happier, the tradition
of elaborate, heavy, inconvenient escape systems might never have developed.
--
"Maybe we should tell the truth?"      | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Surely we aren't that desperate yet." |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 3 Feb 91 20:05:40 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch![e-mail]  (Robert B. Sisk)
Organization: University of Virginia
Subject: NASA Historian?
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

I was just reading some old NASA documents and several questions
came to mind.  If anyone has the answers to these questions please
e-mail them to me.  If someone else also has an interest I will
gladly pass on the information (or post it if there are a lot of
requests).


1).  Does NASA still have a historian?

2).  Does the Goddard Space Flight Center still have a historian?

3).  Does anyone know the names of these people and/or an address
      that can be used to contact them?


Thanks in advance


Robert B. Sisk                Internet: [e-mail]
                    UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #126
*******************