Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_0/v15no071.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Wed,  5 Aug 92 05:01:35
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #071
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  5 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 071

Today's Topics:
         Call for papers - NASA Art. Intelligence conference
              Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
                            ETs and Radio
                               On NASA
                            Origin of Life
                               PERSEIDS
                        Soyuz as ACRV (9 msgs)
                TSS update (indirect via NASA Select)
                          What is the ASRM??

    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: 4 Aug 92 13:15:53 GMT
From: "Nick Short (IDM" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call for papers - NASA Art. Intelligence conference
Newsgroups: comp.parallel,comp.realtime,sci.space

        GSFC AI and Space Applications Conference 93
                 CALL FOR PAPERS
        The Eighth Annual Goddard Conference on
        Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence
                  May 10 - May 14, 1993
        NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA


Scope:

The Eighth Annual Goddard Conference on Space Applications of
Artificial Intelligence will focus on AI research and applications
relevant to space systems, space operations, and space science. Topics
will include, but are not limited to:

    o Knowledge-based spacecraft command and control
    o Expert system management and methodologies
    o Distributed knowledge-based systems
    o Intelligent database management
    o Fault-tolerant rule-based systems
    o Simulation-based reasoning
    o Fault isolation and diagnosis
    o Planning and scheduling
    o Knowledge acquisition
    o Robotics and telerobotics
    o Neural networks
    o Image analysis

Original, unpublished papers are now being solicited for the
conference. Papers must describe work with clear AI content and
applicability to space-related problems. Authors are asked to submit
abstracts first for initial review.

Accepted papers will be presented formally or as poster presentations,
which may include demonstrations.  All accepted papers will be
published in the Conference Proceedings as an official NASA document,
and select papers will appear in a special issue of the international
journal "Telematics and Informatics".  There will be a Conference
award for Best Paper.

Submission:

Abstracts should be 300-500 words in length. Two copies of the
abstract should be submitted by September 1, 1992 along with the
author's name, affiliation, address, and telephone number.
Notification of tentative acceptance will be given by September 16,
1992.  Papers should be no longer than 15 pages and must be submitted
in camera-ready form for final acceptance by November 16, 1992.

Abstracts may be submitted through e-mail, FAX, or regular mail.
E-mail and FAX are preferred.

Submission Addresses:

    Mail:    Mike Moore
        NASA GSFC, Code 522.1
        Building 23, Room E413
        Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA

    E-mail:    [e-mail]

    FAX:     [phone]

Important Dates:

    Abstract Submission            September 1, 1992
    Abstract Acceptance Notification    September 16, 1992
    Paper Submission            November 16, 1992

Conference Co-Chairs:

    Mike Moore
    NASA GSFC, Code 522.1
    Greenbelt, MD 20771
    [phone]
    [e-mail]

    Bob Cromp
    NASA GSFC, Code 930.4
    Greenbelt, MD 20771
    [phone]
    [e-mail]


--

--------------------
Nick Short
Intelligent Data Management Project
Code 934
NASA/GSFC

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

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 17:24:11 +0000
From: Anthony Frost <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space


  > Besides, how would you propose something as large as the
  > Energiya would get shipped out of Baikonur.  The US ships
  > its External Tank by barge fromMichoHow would an Energiya
  > get here?

The An-225 Mria transport aircraft used for moving the Buran shuttle can
also be used for carrying Energiya core stages and second stages according
to articles in the British Interplanetary Society magazine...

        Anthony

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 21:03:57 GMT
From: Wolfgang Zenker <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
: >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
: >>Now subtract out all Population II stars, no heavy elements like iron,
: >
: >Some of them might have enough for a small planetary system.
:
: I mentioned iron for two reasons. First, it's necessary for oxygen
: transport via the blood. [..]

As far as i remember my biology lessons, oxygen transport in the blood of
insects is based on copper, not iron.

Wolfgang

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 19:16:35 GMT
From: Nathan Baruch <[e-mail]>
Subject: On NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

    To all the people on this news group, I have a question
which may sound ridiculous but I thought I would ask here.
In any case, I was talking to my friend about NASA.  It is the
national space agency for the US but what exactly do they do?
Do they actually build the shuttles, satellites, and rockets or
do they just give the plans to some company to build?
    Also I was wondering about the composition of NASA
itself.  Keeping aside the politicians, beareaucrats, and
business managers, what exactly is their 'scientific staff'?
Are they predominantly technicians, engineers (like aerospace
and electrical), or physicists?  I am talking about their building/
designing space vehicles aspect, not the space sciences.  Obviously
physicists and astronomers would be hard at work at that.  In any
case, I am seriously interested in it.  Hopefully one day, I would
like to work there so I want to know what is like over there at
NASA.  I'd appreciate immensely email replies from people at NASA.
Thanks in advance.

Nathan Baruch
[e-mail]

P.S.  Are the other governments research centers like NASA in its
organization?  If not, I will dedicate another posting to that
question.

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 18:59:07 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Origin of Life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:

|> >P.S- Please include a defintion of 'non-trivial self-replication.'

|> Certainly. First, a definition of non-trivial self-replication is a
|> system which contains some machinery, and a blueprint of the machinery.
...
|> Actually I believe that the explanations of how life got started that
|> are being put forward by my opponents in this debate are correct;
|> probably a cluster of RNA and proteins came together that had the
|> ability to replicate itself, using the information in the RNA as a
|> blueprint, and thus was the first life form (I think non-trivial
|> self-replication can reasonably serve as a definition of when life first
|> appeared).



The "naked gene" idea has been proposed, but there is a serious problem
with it.  Specifically, RNA is a rather complex molecule.  Even the components
of RNA are rather complex.  Ribose, for example, is only one of many
different 5-carbon sugars.  There are many bases other than the four
that go into RNA.  There are many ways to hook the bases to the ribose
molecule, and many ways to hook the phosphate to the ribose.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that a piece of naked RNA, floating in
a pool of rather nonspecific chemical fragments, magically rejects
those fragments that are chemically flawed, and reproduces itself?
Remember, even a 1% error rate means no piece of RNA more than 100
bases long (or so) will survive.

Those experiments that had self-reproducing RNA fragments were
conducted in a solution loaded with preformed nucleotides, each with
a diphosphate group to provide the energy needed for the bond to
form.  This is nothing like what would be in "primordial soup".
If even a small admixture of bad nucleotides had been included,
the experiments would have failed.

Is there a way out of this dilemma, without evoking statistical
miracles?  Perhaps.  If a gene in the form of a code cannot reasonably
be expected to arise first, what could?  Some other means of carrying
reproducible information is needed.

I suggest the following mechanism (which is not, I think, original,
but I don't recall where I've seen it).  Suppose some nonspecific
reaction exists that causes proteins (or something like them) to
form from monomers.  These macromolecules will have charged side chains
of various kinds.  Now suppose this polymerization is occuring in an
environment containing various small molecules.  Sometimes, one of
these molecules will be attracted to a forming protein, and act as a kind
of template.  That is, positively charged regions of the template will
encourage the placement of negatively charged monomers near them;
negatively charged regions, positive ones.

When the molecule is done forming, a cavity will exist that matches
the template molecule, more or less accurately.  We'll never get the
same macromolecule twice, but never mind that; this scheme tolerates
a great deal of error and waste.  Now, if the cavity is a good fit, it will
bind the small molecule, and nothing is accomplished.  If the cavity is a
bad fit, again we gain nothing.

But suppose the cavity happens to match the shape of a transition state
between precursors for the template molecule and the template itself,
but binds the template sufficiently weakly that thermal motion can
dislodge it.  Then, by accident, an enzyme that catalyzes the
formation of the template will have been formed.  Such enzymes,
by increasing the concentration of template, will increase the rate
of their own formation.

Alternately, if the template is at a higher energy state than some
smaller molecules, we could get an enzyme that destroys the template.
But these enzymes would tend to inhibit their own formation, by
destroying the templates that induce them.

Now suppose we have a bag (of lipids or somesuch) to confine these
enzymes.  We can imagine that they could sustain themselves by
exploiting free energy available in the primordial soup in the form
of simple energetic molecules (just what, I don't know, but something
better be available for the enzymes to act on).  Bags that encourage
the formation of amino acids (moreover, of amino acids useful for making
enzymes) will survive better than those that do not.  Bags that make more
of proteins, and that can somehow split (say, by getting large, then being
broken into pieces by wave action) can potentially reproduce.

The "genome" of one of these bags is very crude: it is simply the
population of small molecules that are in the bag, small molecules
that induce their own formation.  Multiple stable states are possible,
if the enzymes are competing for substrates.  Precise replication of coded
instructions is not necessary, nor is transcription of a code.
I suggest that today's clear separation of genotype and phenotype
is a later invention.  RNA might have started as a structural material,
rather than as genetic material, and only later have been adapted to
its current role (its structural use in ribosomes is perhaps a clue).

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 16:17:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PERSEIDS
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

               Perseid Observations.

     With the month of August here many amateur
astronomers will be looking forward to the summer's most
spectacular meteor shower - the Perseids.
     Peaking on Aug 11/12 this year the unusual activity
witnessed by observers in Eastern Asia last year with hourly
rates topping 350/hr might well be repeated. The Perseid
predictions this year are complicated by the fact that there
are now two maxima to be concerned with - the new very strong
one seen last year by observers in Eastern Asia and the
regular Perseid peak. If you use predictions made since last
years Perseid shower then Aug 11 22-23h UT will likely be
quoted as the peak, favouring Eastern Europe. This is when
the new peak observed last year will encounter the Earth again.
If you use older predicitions published well before last years
outburst than you will likely have Aug 12 6h UT quoted as
the max - this is the normal long-term maxima which recurs
year after year.
    What you can expect this year will depend critically on
how dark it is when you observe - that means how much
interference the moon causes. The nights before the peak may
provide a few hours of darkness from some locations in the
early morning hours. This is when you will likely see the most
meteors. The peak will have many more meteors attenuated by
moonlight but you may be able to see many bright meteors in spite
of the moonlight.
        In any case, if you are planning to observe why not take
note of some of the data listed below while you observe to make
your observations valuable to those studying the structure of the stream.
     First, please remember to record your observing location to
an accuracy of one degree or more. Secondly, DO NOT lump data
from several observers into one report - always report each
person's data separately. You may simply note which meteors are
Perseids (those that appear to radiate from the area between
Cassiopeia and the top of Perseus) and those that are not during
an interval of at least one hour in length. If meteor rates are
very high then intervals of 15 minutes may be adopted (rates
greater than 2-300/hr). You do not have to note the time of
appearance for every meteor, simply the time you began to watch
for meteors and a time marker every hour or longer and then note
all the meteors seen between these time markers.
     For your observation to be of use an estimate of the
Limiting Magnitude - that is the faintest star visible to your
eye in your field of view must also be made at least once per
hour. Each observer should record his or her own LM - LM's vary
between people depending on perception. Preferably, the LM should
be estimated several times per hour to an accuracy of 0.1 Mv and
an average of these readings used as the "best" LM measure. The
amount your field of view is blocked either by terrestrial
obstructions or by clouds (in which case a time-weighting should
be used) should also be noted for every observing interval. Also,
the effective time you actually spent watching the sky for
meteors should also be recorded during each interval.
     Finally, for those with some meteor observing experience, it
is useful to record the magnitudes of the meteors seen. Magnitude
distributions should be reported per observer per night for both
Perseid and non-Perseid meteors.
     If you are lucky enough to get this data for your observing
campaign during the Perseids this year, the observations can be
sent by email to the address below. It is of great interest to
receive reports via email from observers within 7 days of the
peak, so reports sent in this way by August 18 will be used for a
preliminary look at what happened during the 1992 return of the
Perseids. Later data can be sent via regular mail to the
addresses below.
     Also, please remember to send reports of fireballs to the
Fireball Data Center of the IMO the email address for which is
given below.

For quick email reports send to: [e-mail]
For later reports for observers
in North America send to:     Peter Brown
                              North American Section
                              International Meteor Organization
                              Dept. of Physics
                              University of Western Ontario
                              London, Ontario
                              N6A 3K7
                              Canada
For reports from outside
North America send to:        Rainer Arlt
                              International Meteor Organization
                              Berlinerstrasse 41,
                              D-O-1560,
                              Potsdam,
                              Germany

For fireball reports send
to:                           Andre Knoefel
                              Fireball Data Center
                              International Meteor Organization
                              Saarbrucker Strasse 8
                              D-W-4000
                              Dusseldorf 30,
                              Germany
                    email:    [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 15:29:52 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>I'd like to see a Soyuz:

>>(a)  Stay up for two weeks for large-scale biomedical studies.

>No problem. It will fly up to Fred, do the experiment, and return.

I didn't ask if Fred could do it, I asked if Soyuz could.  Obviously, it
can't.

>>(b)  Put a crew of three outside to mate a new booster to a communications
>>     satellite.

>No problem. Put the booster on a HLV, send them up in a Soyuz to Fred, and
>they they mate the booster.

Of course, the satellite that we're wanting to boost isn't anywhere near
Fred.

>>(c)  Deploy and retrieve a tethered satellite.

>No problem. Put the crew in a Soyuz, send them to Fred, deploy and retrieve
>the satellite from there.

Again, I didn't ask if Fred could do it, I asked if Soyuz could.  Obviously,
it can't.

>>(d)  Retrieve and return a long-duration exposure facility.

>No problem. Use the OTV to retrieve the facility, bring it to Fred. There
>remove the experiment panels, attach new ones, and return the experimental
>panels with the next supply drop.

You didn't even mention Soyuz in this one.

>Why do you insist on focusing on one small part of this approach and then
>demand it do everything?

Because I was answering Henry's claim that Soyuz can do everything the
shuttle can do, and it obviously can't.

Anyway, I let the last couple of your posts slip by, and I probably won't
respond to any more after this...I'm already getting complaints that this
argument is repetitive.  I can't get you to see that there's more involved
than just dollar costs.

Please continue by e-mail if you are interested.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."

Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 15:25:36 GMT
From: Greg Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

#No need to split it up. The Air Force has a Titan IV fairing which is fully
#compatible with the Shuttle.

There is a need to split it up. Having seven different instruments on
HST caused a lot of compromises. Launching three smaller missions
instead of one all singing all dancing one would have been cheaper,
more reliable, and returned more data.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 15:41:38 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>I don't think you can fit any usable cargo in a three-man capsule.
>
>>So if you don't put men in them, what do you have room for? I'd say that you'd
>>have at least the weight for oh 200lbs/person x 3 people = 600lbs of cargo.
>>Strip or fold the seats out...c'mon, you make it sound like it's SOOO
>>difficult.
>
>This is the ACRV, remember?  Don't you think the people who are taking
>the thing down would like to have seats to ride in?

Hey Matt, we're talking about dual-use, and you're trying to carp back on it. I
said you can use Soyuz as both cargo-return AND ACRV. You're whining and saying
you can't use one capsule for both. Since it seems you're going to have to
"replace" the Soyuz after 90-180 days, you might as well pull the seats and
send stuff back on it.

Or would you rather waste the space? Pulling the seats is no big deal; the
Russians have it as SOP, when they move them from "old" Soyuz to "fresh" Soyuz.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 04 Aug 92 15:35:40 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>1. Shuttle production is ended. This puts a maximum life on the fleet.
>>
>>Sure it does. Around 2010 or so. Of course, Henry is going to pop up here and
>>say we'll lose one before then...
>
>You don't have to rely on me for this; your own NRC and OTA will tell you the
>same thing... if you bother to listen.

Forgive me, but harping on it is getting on my nerves. Will it give you great
joy to see another bird lost?

>>If you have to fix Freedom, you can't do it from a tin can. You'll NEED a
>>Shuttle to do it from. Not a Soyuz.
>
>Odd.  Why?  There have been two major space-station-salvage missions flown
>to date, both successful, both using Soyuz-type technology.  (One used a
>Soyuz, in fact, and the other used an Apollo.)  Can you explain why you
>think it is impossible?

If you had your choice of one shuttle with a BIG payload and that CanadaArm
(quite a beauty, eh?), seven people, and the capability to put three people
with suits out the lock, plus anywhere from 7 days to 30 days on your own
groceries, verses a 3 man shot with limited supplies, tools, no CanadaArm, which
would you choose?

Your margins for repair and salvage, not to mention on-orbit time, are MUCH
smaller, plus you can bring lots more tools in the Shuttle payload bay. Plus
the CanadaArm.

Furthermore, both "rescues" were simple; i.e.; hit one docking adaptor, go
inside, do whatever. With a shuttle, you could use the CanadaArm (did I mention
that yet?) to grab onto the truss or use to remove/replace/restore a flapping
solar panel.

Of course, if we went tin-can, we could leave the CanadaArm home and cut back
Canadian participation in the United States space program.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 16:02:26 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>This is the ACRV, remember?  Don't you think the people who are taking
>>the thing down would like to have seats to ride in?

>Or would you rather waste the space? Pulling the seats is no big deal; the
>Russians have it as SOP, when they move them from "old" Soyuz to "fresh" Soyuz.

Wait...if they pull the seats, how do the cosmonauts ride the old one down?

(Forgive me if I am missing something obvious...arguing with Allen has probably
addled my brain.)
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 15:40:16 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 4 Aug 92 01:08:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) said:

AWS> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>AWS> At what cost? Sacrificing everything to high-speed aerodynamics just
>AWS> isn't a good idea.

>I don't know why you say this.  It sounds like a _great_ idea to me.

>Mary Shafer
>Dryden Hypersonic Aircraft Group

AWS> did I mention that part of the savings would be used by buy you
AWS> your own NASP *AND* a brand new F-15? :-)

That's a two-seat F-15, right?  With a requirement for a handling
qualities engineer in the back seat?

Forget the NASP; I want an HL-20.  (When I first came to work here
at Dryden, as a summer-hire college student, the lifting bodies and
X-15 were still flying.  I've liked real lifting bodies ever since.)
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 17:29:48 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>AWS> did I mention that part of the savings would be used by buy you
>AWS> your own NASP *AND* a brand new F-15? :-)

>That's a two-seat F-15, right?  With a requirement for a handling
>qualities engineer in the back seat?

You want to fly in an F-15E? That's not a proper machine for somebody
with the Right Stuff to strap on. I was thinking of a single seat version
but if you can't pass the physical, we can loose the bomb racks and stick
on some AIM-9L's.

>Forget the NASP; I want an HL-20.

No problemo. We'll call it risk reduction in case the SSTO's fail.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------262 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 04 Aug 92 19:05:35 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Let's see, I'm building:
>
>1. Two SSTO efforts    $ 6 billion
>2. OTV                 $ 2 billion
>3. Lunar base          $20 billion
>     Total             $28 billion
>
>We are saving about $4 billion per year so it will take 7 years to pay
>for it all. So we are just barely budgeted into the end of the decade.
>I can squeez you in for 2000 if you have a pet project.
>
>Look at what we get:
>
>      Option A                    Option B
>    1. Working HLV              1. Working space shuttle
>    2. two SSTO efforts
>    3. Reduced MLV launch costs
>    4. An OTV
>    5. Lunar base
>
>Are you actually saying that for the same amount of money that Option B
>is better than Option A?

Shezer, you IGNORED the FACT that you had to beg and scrape and fight just to
get money for one (1) SSTO effort. Where is your head? You also refused to
recognize there aint' no MONEY for new program starts.

Basically, you gotta stop the shuttle *cold* in order to grab the money you
want. And it ain't gonna happen cuz shuttle is booked through 1998-2000 to
build Freedom.

You refuse to recognize the problems NASA has with examining Soyuz as a limited
use vehicle (ACRV). There is a fundmental in-house cultural bias, also called
"Not Invented Here" and you are proposing dumping Shuttle for a tin can.

You have yet to address how you're going to shutdown Rockwell International
and the thousands of workers who currently work on the Shuttle, other than
"they'll be able to get jobs on these new projects."

I'll believe it when I see it. Shuttle is a national asset. The last national
asset we ditched which we'd like to have back is Saturn V.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 19:22:11 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>This is the ACRV, remember?  Don't you think the people who are taking
>>>the thing down would like to have seats to ride in?
>
>>Or would you rather waste the space? Pulling the seats is no big deal; the
>>Russians have it as SOP, when they move them from "old" Soyuz to "fresh" Soyuz.
>
>Wait...if they pull the seats, how do the cosmonauts ride the old one down?

Lookie. What usually happens is (i'm sure I'll get corrected 27 different
ways):

    Long-duration crew (6-9 months average) goes up, with Soyuz #1

    90-120 days roll by, Soyuz #1 is getting old, making way for...

    Launch of 7-10 day visiting crew, usually two cosmonauts and
    one "guest" in Soyuz #2.

    Soyuz #2 docks. They swap couches with Soyuz #1.

    Visit finishes, visiting crew takes Soyuz #1 down, leaves Soyuz
    #2 in place.

Longest duration of a Soyuz in orbit connected to Mir is something like
150-183 days; they had a pad abort on a swap mission, and nothing else lined up
so there were some serious sweating going on before they decided to bring the
two men down on the old Soyuz.

You could send the Soyuz on automatic dock (stop, stop, they do it with
Progress resupply, same deal...), fill it up with goodies (fresh fruit and
lettuce, plus other perishables). Take the old Soyuz and fill it with whatever
you want (garbage, returnable materials, whatever) and deorbit it.

>(Forgive me if I am missing something obvious...arguing with Allen has probably
>addled my brain.)

Naw. It's kinda like talking deficit reduction plans with a presidential
candidate. All the number magically add up, and you have money left over to
spend on someone else's pet project.


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 19:25:30 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: TSS update (indirect via NASA Select)
Newsgroups: sci.space

No release of the TSS yet - it appears to be stuck.

Maybe they need to unpack the Ferrous Portable Leverage Application
Mechanism (FPLM), the Passive Maximal Kinetic Transfer Device (PMKTD),
and the Linear Metallic Abrasive System (LMAS), and try an EVA. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 17:20:03 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:

>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
>latter this year or next.

Don't count on it.

>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.

Unless they use Energia.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------262 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 071
------------------------------