Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_1/v16no171.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 21:08:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #171
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
                        Challenger transcript
             Getting people into Space Program! (4 msgs)
                         hardware on the moon
                          hilarious (2 msgs)
                     HST repair mission (2 msgs)
                        Kill file test message
                   LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
                        leading-edge anonymity
                             non-US SSTO
 Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!) (2 msgs)
                          Sabatier Reactors.
                                 Test

    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: 10 Feb 1993 17:34:18 -0800
From: The Heckler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>This is just unbelievably sick - unless you have some proof, shut up.
>Even if you have proof for that matter I don't particularly want to
>see this sort of sick transcript here - I felt physically sick.
>Just my 2p
>Andy

Andy, grow a sense of humor.  Or at least rent one.  I for one had some good
laughs off that transcript, be it bogus or no (tho it probably is).

Learn to snicker at life's little setbacks, and you'll not only save yourself
an ulcer but have more fun.

Followup set to alt.tasteless, where the transcript was greeted with interest
and applause.

--
Paul Echeverri          |Smile! Cthulhu loathes you! This .sig
Insane by choice        |sponsored by Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
Brilliant by act of Pan |"Society sucks.  Pay it no mind." --Cynthia Heimel.
Poor by act of Congress |email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 22:21:08 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Actually, operating tempratures and total stresses are also pretty close.
>The main differences is in the turbopumps and those exist today. Peak
>stresses on SSTO may be higher but Have Region answered most of the
>open questions on that. That's why every agency and group which has
>looked at SSTO say it can be done.

What is "Have Region"?

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

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 22:53:51 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>>Get with the nineties, Ed...they're running eight to nine flights a year
>>>now, three times as many as anyone else with ten times the people.  Not
>>>as good as it should be, but by far the best in the world.
>
>>Three times as many?  Phui!  Call up American Airlines and get
>>their flight schedule.
>
>I did.  They had *ZERO* flights to my destination and had never had
>any flights going there, moving either cargo or people.

That's true. American Airlines is still delivering in atmosphere :)

No flights to the Moon or Mars either.

>Phui, indeed.



                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:46:11 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Fentiman) writes:

>Keep in mind that the 36 billion is a LONG term budget (NOT what it
>costs to just build the thing, but to support it over a number of years
>- 4 billion is a GROSS underestimate when it comes to that).

No, $36 billion is the cost of the station (this week).  Long-term
operating costs are on top of them.  Nevertheless, we are getting,
at best, a $4-billion space station, not a $36-billion space station,
for this price.


>(Did you intend a smiley here?  Please excuse the following comments if
>you did).  The point, I believe, was that Airlines are in the business
>for transportation, while the shuttle is designed to be living quarters
>and lab as well.

Well, of course!  No airline would fly a 747 from the US to Tokyo,
then park it on the edge of the runway so that businessmen can use
it for sleeping and office space.  That's what God invented Barron
Hilton for!  Only a government agency like NASA would be silly
enough to do something like that.


>Interesting view.  Unfortunately, I think you are overestimating our
>technology, not to mention having a misconception of NASA.  NASA's
>entire goal is scientific study, not a commercial venture.

Which is an excellent argument for *not* allowing NASA to stomp
all over anyone who threatens "their" territory.


>As for making a vehicle that does all the the shuttle's jobs for less
>money, I find it unlikely.

We don't want to "do all the Shuttle's jobs."  We'll settle for
a reuseable, single-stage vehicle that can passengers into orbit
for a few thousand dollars a ticket and cargo for <$50 a pound,
day in and day out, from commercial spaceports all over the world.

McDonnell Douglas produced designs for such SSTO vehicles in
the late 1960's.  Vehicles which could have been built with
technology available then.  Modern technology would make it
easier today.

McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed, General Dynamics,
and Teledyne-Ryan have not only produced designs for SSTO vehicles,
they have found five different ways to do the job.

>The shuttle is designed to get the most efficient use of space
>and consumnables as possible so it can stay up an
>optimal amount of time.

That's just plain silly.  A transportation system, be it spaceship
or airliner, shouldn't be designed to stay up as long as possible.
It should return to Earth as soon as possible so that it can fly
again.

>Commercial airlines have lower tolerances in
>their parts (if you want to equate the Shuttle to that).

Do you have figures to back this up?  Do you have any idea
what kind of forces a turbine blade has trying to tear it
apart in a jet engine?  (Granted, the SSME does push tolerances
pretty close -- close enough to be the only engine to blow up
on the test stand after being manrated -- but that's just bad
design, not a defect of rocket engines per se.

>The shuttle has to survive the riggors of both atmosphere and space,
>both of which can be very damaging.

Well, it doesn't do it very well.  I've flown into Orlando
Airport in weather far worse than that which keeps the Shuttle
on the ground.

>In the atmosphere, it's very similar to planes,
>but must also withstand the heat of re-entry as well as the turbulence
>associated with that action.

Reentry heating is a lot easier to handle if you don't have wings.
And because the Shuttle's wings do not produce lift on ascent, payload
increases if you don't have to drag he damn things into orbit.

>In space, you have widely varying temperatures, contant pelting
>of dust particles (as well as occasional larger space debris)

Whoa, there, big fellow.  The Space Shuttle can't even stand a
hail storm without significant damage -- let alone a constant
pelting of dust particles.


>There are also other factors which, due to the lenght of this letter
>and lack of more specific examples, I will not mention.

Now I assume you forgot the smiley.

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 17:17:44
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Fentiman) writes:

   >Keep in mind that the 36 billion is a LONG term budget (NOT what it
   >costs to just build the thing, but to support it over a number of years
   >- 4 billion is a GROSS underestimate when it comes to that).

   No, $36 billion is the cost of the station (this week).  Long-term
   operating costs are on top of them.  Nevertheless, we are getting,
   at best, a $4-billion space station, not a $36-billion space station,
   for this price.

So, who do you know that will sell Uncle Sam a space station of
comparable specs, in orbit for $4G?

   >(Did you intend a smiley here?  Please excuse the following comments if
   >you did).  The point, I believe, was that Airlines are in the business
   >for transportation, while the shuttle is designed to be living quarters
   >and lab as well.

   Well, of course!  No airline would fly a 747 from the US to Tokyo,
   then park it on the edge of the runway so that businessmen can use
   it for sleeping and office space.  That's what God invented Barron
   Hilton for!  Only a government agency like NASA would be silly
   enough to do something like that.

Well, the NSF would build a ship, sail it to the Antarctic and
anchor it off an island so that the scientist can use it for
sleeping and office space, and for power supply, lab space...
they'll even do research along the way on people's reaction and
adaptation to extreme cold, isolation and darkness, and material
behaviour under those operating conditions, what equipment
people need, including survival suit design. I do believe they've
even tried experiments in deploying new technology under field
conditions and construction techniques.
No Hilton there, see?

   >Interesting view.  Unfortunately, I think you are overestimating our
   >technology, not to mention having a misconception of NASA.  NASA's
   >entire goal is scientific study, not a commercial venture.

   Which is an excellent argument for *not* allowing NASA to stomp
   all over anyone who threatens "their" territory.

Also not quite true. NASA is _not_ the National Space Science
Agency! As I recall its charter is roughly in order:
develop _technology_ for space travel and presence in space,
manned and unmanned; exploration and science; technology transfer.

 ...

   >The shuttle is designed to get the most efficient use of space
   >and consumnables as possible so it can stay up an
   >optimal amount of time.

   That's just plain silly.  A transportation system, be it spaceship
   or airliner, shouldn't be designed to stay up as long as possible.
   It should return to Earth as soon as possible so that it can fly
   again.

??? If you tried this line of thought on various waterships?

   >Commercial airlines have lower tolerances in
   >their parts (if you want to equate the Shuttle to that).

   Do you have figures to back this up?  Do you have any idea
   what kind of forces a turbine blade has trying to tear it
   apart in a jet engine?  (Granted, the SSME does push tolerances
   pretty close -- close enough to be the only engine to blow up
   on the test stand after being manrated -- but that's just bad
   design, not a defect of rocket engines per se.

Not quite, rocket engines (that want to go to orbit) necessarily
have to deal with a lot of energy in a short time. That's hard.
Not impossibly, but definitely inherent to the problem.

 ...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 00:30:12 GMT
From: Joseph Askew <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Speaking of US hardware on the Moon, it all belongs to the
>Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  And the Apollo 11
>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the
>National Park Service.

This is interesting. When the Apollo 11 site was designated as a
National monument did they designate the lander or the lander and
the surrounding area? This is close to claiming juristiction on
the Moon surely. What if I go up there (dream on dream away..)
and take a piece home with me, am I going to get sued by the US
governemnt? What if in the future a vein of element X the shaving
cream atom is discovered underneath does the US government get
stroppy if someone moves it out of the way? Interesting problem
for the future really, wheres a lawyer when you need one!

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
[e-mail]  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:19:57 GMT
From: Steve Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>The response the Challenger transcript has gotten
>>has been hilarious.
>Still an idiot, I see.  You would seem to be the one that needs a
>life.  Poor little thing.
    He's right.  The reaction to the Challenger transcript *was* hilarious
    and you provided a none too small part of that hilarity Fred.


                No anonymity needed to flame the hilarious,


                smg

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:37:22 GMT
From: Patrick L Humphrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

On Wed, 10 Feb 1993 18:26:18 GMT, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) said:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>On Sat, 6 Feb 1993 22:11:00 GMT, [e-mail] (RASKU, JASON T.) said:

>>>Is there anything that can be done to prevent anon postings in groups that
>>>there is no reason to post anonomously?  I CAN see some people who don't
>>>have access to a group posting anonomously but I'm sure that consideration
>>>can be made for them.  Is there ANY way that a UNIVERSAL kill file can be
>>>created in order to keep people from posting GARBAGE anonomusly?  There is
>>>NO reason to not post publicly if you are posting something you feel is of
>>>worth unless you CAN'T post any other way.  What does the rest of the net
>>>think of this?

>>This corner of Usenet thinks you're another clueless newbie who could use
>>learning a few tenets of common sense.  I don't think any more highly of
>>Tesuji's appalling humor than you do -- but I don't spend my time trying to
>>make sure he can't post it.  If you don't like it, there's one simple option
>>-- your "n" key.  Once you've figured that out, then you can try a killfile,
>>which will prevent *you* from reading his junk -- there is no such thing as a
>>killfile that will prevent anyone from posting, and that's a good thing, I
>>think.  Otherwise, it could be used to silence opinions that might not mesh
>>with those of the powers that be -- which means it could be used to shut YOU
>>up.  Finally, be a little more accurate, and say there's no reason YOU can
>>think of to post anonymously -- just because you can't think of a reason why
>>in no way implies that none exist...

>Well one need hardly be a newbie to react this way.  I've got a guy
>who's been around a while (even gave a talk on security at the last
>USENIX, I think) who has threatened me with everything from
>intervention by the Internet Police to going to my company for legal
>action; from writing to my Postmaster (which he has done) to writing
>to my boss's boss's boss.

Welcome to the club -- I've had David Rasmussen, of talk.abortion fame
(or infamy?) actually show up here at Rice looking for me, after his repeated
demands for my punishment, and his threats of legal action against either me
or the University (he never could quite make up his mind as to who he was
going to sue, or what to sue them for), were ignored by my admins.  Of course,
leave it to him to think that I'd be around in the early afternoon, just
because I was working nights -- as a result, he got nowhere, and a lot of
people here had a good laugh.

>Of course, some amount of cluelessness *does* seem to be required,
>even if the individual doesn't happen to be a newbie.

That seems to be the case, all right -- not only in my real-life example, but
in another instance where a current terrorizer of alt.irc tried complaining to
my postmaster about me sending him e-mail -- the only problem being I sent it
from a Fidonet BBS, and did it from home, so the University had no part in it
at all.  There are some people out there I could sell clues to at a nickel
apiece, and make enough to retire before I turn 38 -- and that's only fourteen
weeks away...:-)

--PLH, tonight's food fight has been canceled -- CK actually served something
edible, for once...

--

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 22:54:52 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>A year ago you assured us that Soyuz was unsupportable politically. Now
>we will be buying several for ACRV.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did something interesting happen while I wasn't looking?

-Kevin

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:11:52 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>>A year ago you assured us that Soyuz was unsupportable politically. Now
>>we will be buying several for ACRV.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Did something interesting happen while I wasn't looking?

Allen may be jumping the gun a little, but it sure looks like that's what
will happen.  The station needs a lifeboat, there is no money to design
one from scratch, the people studying using Soyuz keep saying "it doesn't
look like there's much wrong with this idea...", and the politics are
right for such a purchase.

It will be an "interim" lifeboat, of course, until ESA or NASA gets
around to building the real one.  Just like IUS was the "interim" heavy
upper stage for the shuttle...
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 23:02:28 GMT
From: 8 February 1993 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kill file test message
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy

As a public service, this is a test message.
If you have properly set up your kill filter
for anonymous postings, then you ought not to
see this message.  You're welcome!

........................................

Warning: this is an anonymous posting.  If pasted into a TCB or Security Kernel
incorrect results may occur.  Meta-level criticism of anonymous postings will
be answered provided the sender: (1) supply C3 level authentication of
identity, including social security number, driver's license number, verifiable
home address and phone number and home phone numbers of two higher levels
of supervisor. (Spouse's phone number and place of employment may be
substituted if self-employed); (2) supply MD5 level or greater authenticating
signature of contents accompanied by the oath of two Notary Publics of the
correctness of the preceding information under penalty of Perjury under the
laws of the State of California and New York.

The reader acknowledges the copyright of the original message remains with
an8785. Copyright (C) 1993 an8785.  All Rights Reserved.  Unauthorized
excerpting or reposting may subject the infringer to severe criminal and
civil prosecution under the Federal Software Copyright Law or the Electronic
Computer Privacy Act, or both.

Responder agrees that copyright of response becomes the exclusive property
of an8785 and that all responses may be sold, assigned, published, made
public, and/or sent to members of any law enforcement body.  In consideration
of reading of the response, Responder agree that he or she is explicitly
soliciting indecent, obscene, or threatening messages by return e-mail:

"NOTICE: This is a private data stream.  All reponders to this stream are
subject to having their activities audited.  Anyone using this stream consents
to such auditing. Unauthorized or illegal responses revealed by auditing may be
used as evidence and may lead to criminal prosecution."

Responder agrees to indemnify recipient and to pay all attorney's fee in case of
litigation for whatever reason. To unconditionally agree to all the above
conditions, press any key.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to [e-mail] for details.

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 00:03:35 GMT
From: Fred Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:



>                          LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"
>[Lots of amazing stuff]

Hey Bob, where do you come up with this stuff?

Did I miss your Velikovskyite stuff, or haven't you gotten to him, yet?

BTW, I was disappointed that the LARSON in question was not Gary.  :-)

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 18:23:11
From: Where are the Prawns? <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

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

   >I really had to reply to some of the JUNK being posted here about
   >anonymity.  To say that anonymous stuff is automatically junk _IS_
   >prejudice, plain and simple.  The reason people post anonymously is so
   >that they don't have to put up with some of the CRAP I've seen around
   >here.  If you think this guy's just out to stir things up, why are you
   >giving him what he wants?  _HE_ never stirred things up.  If you took a
   >look around you, you'd see that, in fact, YOU have been the ones stirring
   >things up!

   Right.  And applying similar logic, it isn't the terrorist who planted
   the bomb that created all that havoc.  It was all those people running
   around and screaming after it went off.

You mean those who ignored the bomb survived?  It's not really the
same kind of situation, is it?

   There *are* some valid uses
   for anonymity.  What this idiot was and is doing isn't one of them.
   That makes him automatically junk.

What he was *doing*, perhaps.  But based on what you say, anonymity
alone does not "make him junk."

I could have chosen not to waste my time reading this thread.  But due
to my obvious masochism, I chose otherwise.

So who chooses anonymity for whom?

-- JC

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:52:13 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: non-US SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:

>What about other countries?  If is SSTO is as promising as hoped and been
>feasible as long as has been claimed, building a few would be a cost effective
>way for a nation or nations to claim space preeminence (not to mention putting
>egg in NASA's face).

MBB proposed a SSTO (called Beta) to the European Space Agency,
but ESA decided to go for Buck Rogers (aka Hermes) instead.  The
projects ESA undertakes seem to be determined more by national
rivalries than anything else.

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 17:08:43 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>The point I am getting at, I would say, is that with the sole exception
>>of the Russians, nobody is considering using disposable capsules for their
>>manned access to space, and the Russians themselves are or were trying to
>>get away from it.

>With the sole exception of the Russians?  With the sole exception
>of the Russians, who else but the United States is putting people
>into space?

Note I said 'considering'.  The U.S, the Russians, the ESA, and the Japanese
are all either actively sending people up or are working on it, although
the Japanese don't have it as a high priority.

>Both the Russians and the United States are putting people into
>space in artillery shells boosted by long-range missiles.  Calling
>the Space Shuttle a "space-transportation system" doesn't make it
>one.

Odd, last time I checked it transported both people and cargo into space.
It may not be an edward Wright-approved system, but it's the best there is.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew

Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:42:12 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>With Shuttle, about 90% of your vehicle is recovered, only the external
>tank is lost.

Of course, it costs more money to refurbish those boosters, after
dragging them out of the ocean, than it would to buy new ones.  (Not
to mention leading to an occassional crash.)  The Space Shuttle Main
Engines have to be removed, shipped back to the factory, and totally
rebuilt after every flight.  Tiles have to be replaced, software
rewritten (for every flight!), and the entire system reassembled,
stacked, and rolled out to the launch pad at enormous cost.

>You get 40,000 pounds of payload to orbit, up to 7 or 8
>crew, 1 to 2 weeks on orbit for experiments and other work, and return.

Ho-hum.

>As a combination cargo hauler and experiment platform,
>Shuttle has no peer at any price today.

Yes, no current system can pump as much money into NASA
while flying the same mission that the Shuttle does.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:42:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>So why was centaur banned?  couldn't they have made a few changes to
>make it "Shuttle-safe"

Difficult, I'm afraid.  The problem was a combination of really large amounts
of cryogenic fuels, pressure-stiffened "balloon" tanks, and an overall load
that was uncomfortably high and required the ability to dump propellants
before an emergency landing (two orbiters were modified for that).  Plus, in
my opinion, a certain amount of superstition; in particular, NASA has never
liked balloon tanks.

The last straw was that Galileo was the only mission that really had to have
Centaur.  So when "safety" suddenly acquired very high priority, that offered
the perfect excuse to cancel something the shuttle people had never liked
much.

You could build a "shuttle-safe" LH2/LOX upper stage, but I think you'd
have to make it a bit smaller and avoid balloon tanks.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 15:31:46 -0800
From: Mark Smilor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Test
Newsgroups: sci.space

 I am just running a test







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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 171
------------------------------