Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_1/v16no184.txt

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 05:13:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #184
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 15 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
                  Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
                      A response from Anonymous
                           Clinton cuts SSF
            David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth (2 msgs)
             Getting people into Space Program! (2 msgs)
                        kerosene/peroxide SSTO
                  Looking for NSSDC CDROM Catalog *
   Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
                      PEGASUS QUESTION (3 msgs)
                          Sabatier Reactors.
        space station cut, goldin to stay on at NASA (2 msgs)
                              SSTO news
                Women in EVA (was Re: Question Help !)

    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: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:57:14 GMT
From: Willie Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here it is:

    USGS
    EROS Data Center
    Sioux Falls, SD 57198

    [phone]

These are the folks who have the government-collected (taxpayer
funded) Landsat data for sale 'at cost'.  $6 to $65 for prints, $8 or
$24 for film, $3 for slides, $80/tape for data (though my prices are
almost 3 years old).
--
Willie Smith
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Feb 93 04:45:16 GMT
From: "Mr. Aaron Barnhart" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Robert Mah) wrote:
:In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
:
:Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what
:they say?  As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility
:taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns.
:
: > I think the fundamental issue here is control.
:
:In my view, the fundamental issue is taking responsibility for your
:own actions.  Personally, I think personal responsibility is a good
:thing.
:
: > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from
: > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be
: > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the
: > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare.
:
:Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that
:"cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest.  We don't need
:anonymous postings to get there.
:

Very interesting.  I assumed, having jumped in late, we were talking
about that whole anonymous ftp brouhaha found on other threads here.

Robert's response to anon rings true with me, because there does have
to be a balance between freedom and responsibility.  I've been arguing
pretty strongly that anonymous ftp is a very special institution and
its unintimidating reputation needs to be preserved.  But that also
needs zealous sysadmins not to hound people who download accessible
files (including "passwd" if someone's so irresponsible as to leave it
there, unprotected).  *And* it needs net citizens who do not boldly
go where they are not allowed -- that prohibition being in the form of
a password or similar wall of separation, not a dumb notice that says,
"Don't peek."

Shift to e-mail, however, and the balance needs to be different,
since the absence of any kind of trail can lead to tremendous abuse
by poor net citizens.  Real wankers can be tracked down if they use
ftp; but if anon e-mail were permitted, even that verifiable trail
would vanish.  The beauty about anon ftp, of course, is you don't
need to use the log, provided you set up everything correctly, and
your bounty is truly everyone's to share.  But who will protect the
recipients of unwelcome and anonymous e-mail?

Aaron

P.S.  I will allow as how I may have completely misread the anon e-mail
argument and welcome any and all clarifications.

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 15:30 PST
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton cuts SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>An article appeared in today's (1993.02.12) issue of the _Washington
>Post_ that the Clinton administration has decided on cutting the
>current annual budget of Space Station Freedom by some forty percent.
>This reduces the earlier amount of about 2.3 G$ to about 1.5 G$ in an
>agreement reportedly worked out with NASA administrators.
>
According to yesterday's Los Angeles Times, the administration has decided
on full funding for SSF this year ($2.25B).  More details should be forthcoming
during Clinton's speech to Congress on Wednesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:05:38 GMT
From: Tom Mandel <[e-mail]>
Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>Need I say more?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

Yes, you need say a great deal more, starting with your name and electronic
address.  I cannot speak for others but I regard anonymous postings in
a serious discussion as pretty much worthless.  I may disagree with
Sternlight's views, but views that hide behind the veil of anon
are hardly worth the trouble of reading.

--
Tom Mandel              [e-mail]           [e-mail]

[1] Opinions are mine, not my employer's, except when we agree.
[2] Having a WELL account should not be construed as a permanent disability.
[3] Email to the above; flames to alt.fan.amy-fisher.

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

Date: 14 Feb 93 20:12:13 EST
From: jason 'Think!' steiner <[e-mail]>
Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Tom Mandel) writes:
> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
> >Need I say more?
>
> Yes, you need say a great deal more, starting with your name and
> electronic address.  I cannot speak for others but I regard
> anonymous postings in a serious discussion as pretty much
> worthless.  I may disagree with Sternlight's views, but views that
> hide behind the veil of anon are hardly worth the trouble of
> reading.

then don't read them. i'm sure you know how to use a killfile or can
figure it out if you give it a try. it's relatively simple to kill
all posts from *@anon.penit.fi. i'm not being facetious here. in fact,
i've considered doing just that. i'm not offended by much, so i haven't
bothered to yet. but it is an option, one that allows those who feel
they need anonymity to be anonymous & still keeps "worthless" posts
from wasting your time.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`                Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.                 `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [e-mail] ,`,`,`

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 17:35:45 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Fentiman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>:In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Fentiman) writes:
>:
>: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.
>
>Then I gues CBS news better change their figures.
>

be careful.  the program pricce varies with inflation and interest rates.


>
>:and Teledyne-Ryan have not only produced designs for SSTO vehicles,
>:they have found five different ways to do the job.
>
>Fine.  No-one's stopping anyone from building these things.  It's out of
>NASA's relm.  The point I stated was that NASA is NOT in the
>transportation buisiness, so blaming them for putting holds on anything
>won't fly (no pun intended).  You're talking about a commercial venture,
>which should be paid commercially.  It would serve no purpose to NASA.
>

Problem is NASA distorts the market.
NASA won't put payloads on other vehicles,  and they influence
wether foreign launchers can be used.  and then they offer
space to their own loads at highly arbitrary prices.
They have stopped doing commercial loads,  but like the DOD they
influence the market,  preventing normal competition.


>:>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.
>
>It is not silly.  It is the TRUTH.  FACT.
>

Maybe you miss the point.  Would you buy a truck that has a 50 gallon
gas tank but only 500 pounds useful cargo, because it's designed
to cruise for a week, without refueling?
If you view the shuttle as a transportation system, it's pretty lousy.
cargo weight is low.  cost is high.  mission sortie rate is very low.

If you view it as a workshop, it's also pretty poor.  8 weeks availability/
year.  small, cramped.  low power rating.  restricted chemicals.
Would you want to work at a lab with only one outlet?

the shuttle is a combined workshop/transporter, and hence does
neither job particularly well.   I think something
like skylab would be much more useful  with some larger
resupply vehicles and the capacity to grow the structure.

If STS was sucha great workshop, why build freedom?

THe shuttle is a dog, but we are stuc=k with it, until we can build
something better and get it flying.  I dont think it's a wise
idea to scrap what you have until the replacement is on-line.
If we were still building saturns when the shuttle flew in 81,
we'd be in a much better position today.

>
>: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.
>
>That's becuase it wont take horrendus amounts of fuel to get back on
>course.  Rough weather (IE - high winds), could easily change the
>shuttle's course.  Small (unplanned) differences in orbits can easily
>result in a tradegy.  Unlike an aircraft, you have to use the same
>amount of fuel in space to stop a motion as it took to make it (you cant
>use any form of frictional breaking that is reliable anless you're
>reentering the atmophere, and then you better be on target for your
>landing site.  The shuttle's fuel (as well as any space vehicle's these
>days) is very volitile.  I don't think you'd want to rish lightning
>strikes with explosive (not just flamable) fuel.
>
All discussions about orbital mechanics aside, this ignores the point.
The shuttle cannot land in weather, most small craft put down in
routinely, a) cuz it's aglider  b)  cuz the tiles break up in rain.
In fact, weather forecasting is a major risk point in shuttle
landings.

>But without wings, it also reduces the size of the reentry vehicle and
>control of landing.  The shuttle's wings allow it the accuracy of a
>plane, thereby knowing exactly where it will land (not just somewhere in
>a 20 mile radius in the ocean).  It also affects it's resuability.
>

I don't think wings affect the size of the re-entry vehicle,
they improve the cross wind landing range.  Wings allow
the vehicleto go over 2,000 miles left or right of the ground
track.  this was an AF requirement, not a NASA spec.
the NASA design for the shuttle was alifting body.

Besides, I think capsules can be quite large and have a pretty good
landing accuracy.  the chutes probably introduce the most variation
in final impact point.  henry would know the exact figures,  but
even in the satellitte film recovery capsules, i'd bet over 90%
came down within a mile of prediction.


>
>Read a little about space, will ya?!  Earth is bombarded by MILLIONS of
>TONS of dust from space every year!  Anything in orbit OBVIOSLY suffers
>the same effects.
>
There's dust up there but it's microscopic.  hwo do ytou think
sattellites hold up.  or look at LDEF.  years in orbit, without
much major damage.   Anything the size of a paint fleck
though will do major damage to anything.  I think discovery
had one bury itself an inch into the pilots window.
I suspect planetary dust densities are very very low.  i'd
bet atomic oxygen and cosmic radiation are a bigger design
challenge.

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

Date: 15 Feb 93 02:41:34 GMT
From: Philip Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

|>
|> >The Russian Space Agency, for that much hard currency, would happily
|> >build and launch three of them (one as a demo to prove they could do
|> >it -- since the US wouldn't believe them otherwise -- one for operational
|> >use, and one as an on-orbit spare), and throw in free maintenance and
|> >resupply for the first five years.
|>
|> Here we go again.  Wouldn't throw Americans out of work?
|>
|> -rabjab

There is more to the world than just the USA.  Moreover, I imagine
unemployed Russians have a harder life than unemployed Americans.
To the extent that any protectionist measures benefit some group, e.g.
US space service providers, the rest of the world - including US space
service customers - is disadvantaged (read: higher costs to pay for
the mollycoddling).   Please spare us your parochialism, Jeff.

--
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.


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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:13:25 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russell Mcmahon) writes:
>I am surprised that it is suggested that Peroxide can be used in a SSTO.
>Peroxide / Kerosine will generally give a somewhat lower Isp than LOX
>/ Kerosene. For the latter Isp is around 280 to 320 depending on chamber
>pressure and altitude. The Atlas which was a 1.5 stage used this and
>requires very light weight construction...

You definitely haven't been following the discussion.  Peroxide/kerosene
does give lower exhaust velocity (aka Isp) than LOX/kerosene, but it is
also quite a bit denser, meaning smaller tanks and less structural mass.
Its advantage over LOX/kerosene is modest but non-trivial.

However... you've missed a more fundamental point.  *SSTO is not that hard*.
The near-unanimous conclusion of recent studies is that you don't *have*
to go for absolute maximum performance to make SSTO work.  There are lots
of ways to build a probably-workable SSTO.  Which one you choose will be
determined by other constraints, not by technical feasibility.  Mitchell
Burnside Clapp (whose ideas triggered this discussion) chose that fuel
combination not for performance, but for ease of operations.  For routine
flying operations, it's a considerable advantage to have fuels that are
easy and safe to handle, i.e. fuels that do not need refrigeration and
are not highly toxic.  This is where peroxide/kerosene comes from.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 03:20:40 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for NSSDC CDROM Catalog *
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

It would be appreciated if somone could Email me the latest NSSDS CDROM
Catalog. I have the print out but not the file on disk.
Thanks in advance


         --- Ryan Korniloff
         --- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:00:39 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>(Upon reading your message I went looking for Mars Trojans in the
>>*Boys' Big Book of Asteroids* but found nothing.
>
>I seem to recall a Mars Trojan being discovered a while back.

There is, indeed, one known.  There may be some more, although it's not
likely that there are great swarms of them.  They're not easy to spot,
because they are "Trojans" only in a loose sense -- they wander a long
way from the actual Trojan points.

There actually isn't much about the Mars Trojan(s) that makes it/them
particularly useful for future space activities, compared to other
non-main-belt asteroids like the Earth-approachers.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:41:39 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>> which couldn't have ever been built. It should be obvious that very
>> few people actually care if a space station is ever built.

>This is massively unfair to both the leadership of NASA and the troops
>in the trenches-- including all the people on the Net who are working
>on SSF and things that support it.

I don't for a second doubt that there are lots of people working of Freedom
who honestly and sincerely want to see it fly.

At the same time however, the management at both NASA and the contractors
have spent billions of $$ on designs which they knew couldn't be assembled
in space. Wrose, they have for years prefered to cover up and hide problems
rather than deal with them.

I am unable to reconsile the actions of these people with the actions
of people who honestly want a permanent presence in space and conclude
that they don't actually care if Freedom is built or not.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------121 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:38:16 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]> writes:
>Why a winged rockets?

Consider a conventional rocket launched vertically: The rocket has a
net acceleration of

a = (T - W)/(W/g) = g*( (T/W) - 1 )

Where T is the rocket's thrust, W is it's weight and g is the acceleration
from gravity. Clearly, a rocket with a thrust to weight ration under
one will go nowhere, and with a thrust to weight ration slightly over
one, the rocket will make an inefficient use of it's fuel. A typical
rocket might have a thrust to weight of around 2, giving a net
acceleration of 1g.

Now consider a rocket with wings, accelerating horizontally. To
stay at a constant altitude, it must exert an aerodynamic lift
equal to its weight. This creates a horizontal drag, proportional
to the rocket's lift to drag ratio. So the net acceleration is

a = (T - Drag)/(W/g) = ( T - W/(L:D) )/(W/g)
                     = g*( (T/W) - (1/L:D) )

For a supersonic L:D of 2, and a T/W of 2, a rocket would accelerate
at 1.5g instead of the 1g acceleration of the same rocket launched
vertically without wings. In effect, the wings reduce the "effective"
weight of the rocket, which the engines must fight against, by
the lift to drag ration of the wings.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:05:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>... In effect, the wings reduce the "effective"
>weight of the rocket, which the engines must fight against, by
>the lift to drag ration of the wings.

There is, of course, a price for this:  wings have mass and create drag,
and exploiting them effectively requires you to stay within the atmosphere
(where in most other ways you'd prefer to climb out of it as quickly as
possible).  Note that Taurus -- which is a wingless Pegasus atop an MX
first stage -- has substantially more payload than Pegasus.  Whether
wings really pay for themselves is something that takes close analysis.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 20:05:30 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

<Stuff Deleted>

>Now consider a rocket with wings, accelerating horizontally. To
>stay at a constant altitude, it must exert an aerodynamic lift
>equal to its weight. This creates a horizontal drag, proportional
>to the rocket's lift to drag ratio. So the net acceleration is
>
>a = (T - Drag)/(W/g) = ( T - W/(L:D) )/(W/g)
>                     = g*( (T/W) - (1/L:D) )
>
>For a supersonic L:D of 2, and a T/W of 2, a rocket would accelerate
>at 1.5g instead of the 1g acceleration of the same rocket launched
>vertically without wings. In effect, the wings reduce the "effective"
>weight of the rocket, which the engines must fight against, by
>the lift to drag ration of the wings.
>
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder

First, I'm thankful for this and other responses. It would seem to me,
though, that this acceleration scheme would work only if the rocket
didn't change its altitude - that is, if it flew in an atmospheric orbit
rather than on a tangent or a spiral. In the end, the amount of work
required to get the rocket into a real orbit would be greater this way,
because the rocket would be flying through more air. No? Am I missing
something?

I do buy the suggestion that 50K feet is a good altitude to start a
rocket from, and that the wings might be used to steer the rocket onto a
reasonable course, following launch from the B52, while taking advantage
of at least some of airplane's velocity.

Best Regards,
-Larry C.



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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 23:20:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>SO what are Balloon tanks?  and how are they different from conventional
>tanks?

Balloon tanks are just what the name sounds like:  metal balloons, with
essentially no structural strength aside from that provided by internal
pressurization.  They're very light but a little awkward to handle (since
they will collapse if not pressurized).

Actually, the division isn't all that sharp, because even more conventional
tanks do get a significant fraction of their structural strength from
pressurization.  Balloon tanks are just an extreme.

> Could shuttle have carried a empty centaur to orbit,
>and met up with an orbiting fuel dump?

Not impossible, and such things were proposed.  In fact, you could
*probably* fuel an empty Centaur from residual propellants in the shuttle's
own external tank, and dispense with the fuel dump.  However, there are
some modest unknowns associated with transferring cryogenic fuels in
free fall, and a fair bit of development work would have been needed
overall.  NASA is no longer ambitious enough to tackle things like that,
however valuable they would be in the long run.

>Or would it just be better to launch the mission on a Proton or Titan 4
>or even energiya?

Proton is not big enough, Titan IV wasn't available at the time (it's
pretty new, remember, and Galileo launched several years ago), and the
politics of using Energia would undoubtedly have been prohibitive.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:56:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: space station cut, goldin to stay on at NASA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>So, if Freedom tosses the truss,  how different does it become
>from MIR?

The idea is to make it *more* like Mir -- real hardware in orbit, rather
than paper designs on the ground. :-)

However, I'd be a little skeptical about reports of massive cost cuts
achieved by abandoning the truss.  The truss isn't that expensive.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:33:22 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: space station cut, goldin to stay on at NASA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

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

>However, I'd be a little skeptical about reports of massive cost cuts
>achieved by abandoning the truss.  The truss isn't that expensive.

Except that the project management for the truss is out of control. They
are $1 billion over budget and are still hemoraging $$. It also takes
several very expensive shuttle flights to assemble.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------121 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 22:53:00 GMT
From: Rob Healey <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO news
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|> goods. If you want US manufacturing to stay alive, buy something else.
|> Like an Amiga. Or an Atari. While you can. It's too goddamn late for
|> you to stop acting retarded and buy a NeXT.

    Commodore stopped producing Amiga's in the US last year. Their
    main facilitys are in Hong Kong, Germany and Scotland(?). I
    don't think Atari's are made in the US either. I believe Apple's
    are the only US made computer on the micro market and they
    spend alot of their money in litigation over look and feel; sigh...

        FYI,

        -Rob

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

Date: 14 Feb 93 17:09:18 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Women in EVA (was Re: Question Help !)
Newsgroups: sci.space

There have been 3 women spacewalkers so far:

Svietlana Savickaya  in 1984 (Soyuz T-12)
Kathryn Sullivan     in 1984 (STS-41G)
Kathryn Thornton     in 1992 (STS-49)

Several others have been designated for EVA in the case of emergency,
but did not perform a spacewalk:

Bonnie Dunbar
Ellen Baker
Tamara Jernigan


                              Pawel Moskalik

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

Newsgroups: sci.space

From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Old Tech, why do we need new tech?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 19:25:55 GMT
Lines: 20
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

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

>dedicated to the satellite repair. But if the Shuttle is already in the
>neighborhood doing something else, using Shuttle could be cheaper since
>the incremental cost would be low.

You still don't get it Gary. There has yet to be a satellite rescue
by Shuttle which didn't spend a lot more than replacement cost of
the satellite.

Now it need not be this way. It will likely be that DC will make repair
cost effective. However we won't have reduced costs so long as people
insist that we shouldn't worry about the costs.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------121 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 184
------------------------------