Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no205.txt

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 05:00:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #205
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 21 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
                Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
                             F-1 history
                         hardware on the moon
                    I need info about space debris
                          kerosene/peroxide
   Major Matt Mason (was: Looking for astronaut plastic figures...)
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (4 msgs)
                           PEGASUS QUESTION
Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
    Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
                          Sabatier Reactors
   Space IR telescope schemes (was Re: HST repair mission) (2 msgs)
                  SSTO/DC-X in the Media.. (2 msgs)
                   Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
                          wind on the moon?

    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: 19 Feb 93 02:18:44 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|
|In my Introduction to Nuclear Engineering class, I was taught that
|there are four ways of limiting exposure to radiation:
|  1) Increase the distance between yourself and the source
|  2) Decrease your exposure time
|  3) Increase your shielding
|  4) Reduce the intensity of the source
|
|If somebody has come up with a new way, please advise.
|

Have a grad student run the experiment.:-)

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 06:21:11 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: F-1 history
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (University Space Society) writes:
>PS Hey Henry, MacDougal in Heavens and the Earth states that the F1 was a
>Marshall project. This squares with what I know from Dannenberg and others
>around here who worked on the engine. Where did your information come from?

NASA SP-4206, "Stages to Saturn", pages 104-107:  "Origins of the F-1".
In 1955, the USAF put out feelers for a one-million-pound engine system,
not necessarily a single engine.  By 1957, Rocketdyne was sure it could
build a single engine that size, to the point where they were starting
ignition tests.  In 1958 they got a big USAF contract for design and
early development work on a 1Mlb engine.  Around then, NASA inherited
the F-1 as part of the transfer of USAF space work.  In January 1959,
Rocketdyne got a NASA contract to continue work, and two months later
they demonstrated 1Mlb thrust with a 200ms ignition test.  (Somewhere
along the line, probably with the first NASA contract, the goal moved
from 1Mlb to 1.5Mlb, but the 1Mlb test was already almost ready.)  I
don't know exactly who at NASA was supervising the work at the time,
but it was Del Tischler who wrote the definitive F-1 specs (himself,
in 24 hours).

It was a year after that, in March 1960, that most of ABMA was moved
to NASA and became Marshall, taking over responsibility for most of
NASA's propulsion work.  (About a year after that, the F-1 fired at
full thrust for the first time.)
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:31:48 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:
>I vaguely recollect that one of the seismometer experiments was to measure
>the impact of a (several?) lunar ascent module (after the mascons finally
>perturbed the orbit enough for it 'fall' out of orbit).  Something to do
>with measuring the elasticity of the lunar surface after being hit with an
>object of a known mass.  Much like ringing a very large bell.  (Do you know
>anything about this Henry?)

You can do seismic studies using either "passive" techniques (just listen;
pretty boring on the Moon, since it has very little geological activity)
or "active" techniques (hit it with something and listen for the echos,
so to speak).  Starting with Apollo 12 they crashed the LM ascent stages
deliberately, soon after the astronauts departed, to give the seismometers
a thump of a known size to listen for.  Starting (I think) with Apollo 13,
they also crashed the Saturn V third stages for even bigger thumps.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 05:45:08 GMT
From: Harlan McMorris <[e-mail]>
Subject: I need info about space debris
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm currently doing a research project on space debris. I would be
most appreciative if any of y'all could e-mail me or post information
about what is being done to deal with this problem.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| All science is physics or stamp collecting.                          |
|                                                                      |
|                        - Ernest Rutherford                           |
|                                                                      |
| Harlan McMorris NYSC '92                                             |
| University of Texas at Austin                                           |
| [e-mail]                                            |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:53:43 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: kerosene/peroxide
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer,
[e-mail] writes:
>The NF-104 program at Edwards had ordinary USAF technicians handling
>peroxide routinely for eight years with no significant problems.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but wasn't hydrogen peroxide monoprop used
in the mercury RCS system. Think it was also used in the LLTV Lunar
Lander Training Vehicle RCS, too.

Dennis W.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 03:47:49 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Major Matt Mason (was: Looking for astronaut plastic figures...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:
>
>Geez...  That brings back memories of Major Matt Mason (sic?).  About the
>same size as and functionality as GI-JOE.  Lets see, it was late sixties,
>early seventies.  They're probably collectors items now.  Lots of neat moon
>rovers, etc.  Sigh.  I'd probably pay for one if it was in good enough
>condition...

You got it right:  Major Matt Mason - Mattel's Man in Space

Actually, the Major Matt Mason collection was one of the more intelligent
space oriented toys to come out in that time period.  Anyone else have
pleasant memories of either giving or receiving MMM toys or still have
some kicking around (!) ?

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

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 23:46:05 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Previous posts have compared SSF to DC-X...one time to many.....
As I have stated on earlier posts DC-X is a 1/3 scale model.  A proof of
concept and NOT a NASA program.  Put a man in there and it's a whole new
show....Make it a full production program and it's also a new
show....although MDA is WELL prepared to do it JUST as we do Delta.
Bottom line...Apples to oranges....

One more point...I've tried to keep all my posts related explicitly to
technical or other aspects of the systems I'm involved because I'd hoped it
was of interest to the readers here....unfortunately I have strayed in my
desire to see, what some people think of as a major boongoggle, fly ... for
that I apologize.....  I am still willing to describe anything anyone here
may have interest in....my area is Flight Crew Integration and the Data
Mgmt System....specifically, me and my guys help NASA design and then
implement all of the onboard displays.....

Lets please keep political and other types of arguments off this board and
onto others more suited.....OK?  I don't see how the previous posts will
help get SSF or any other space station up.

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 03:48:47 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>The Moon...? Oh yes, that's that place we sent a few people to 20
>years ago. Meanwhile the tortise is learning far more than we know
>about living and working in space. The Hare thinks refueling monopropellent
>is too dangerous; the tortise does it all the time. The Hare minimized the
>EVA done because its too dangerous; the tortise now does it as a matter
>of routine. The Hare has no plans for industrial material production
>in space; the tortise has been doing it experimentally for a few years
>now. The Tortise has had a working space station for several years; the
>Hare has invested billions and years of time on bits of paper.

    I'm confused again, Allen. Why do you say that "the Hare" (the US)
    thinks that refueling is too dangerous? What do we have in orbit
    that needs to be refueled? "The tortoise" does this all the time
    because it has to, Mir will run out of fuel, otherwise. We have
    no space station up there yet, so we have no big spacecraft to
    refuel. The Freedom design, at least until Billary killed it, called
    for either refuelling or complete changeout of propulsion modules.
    Since the Shuttle has a large return capability, it may be simpler
    to swap fuel tanks in orbit (or the whole thruster pack.) Refueling
    is dangerous, but NASA would likely do the same if it didn't have
    the option of doing a safer module replacement. The Russians don't
    have this option.

    As an aside, wouldn't you be happier if we just bought Russia's
    refuelling technology? If NASA was to perform a refuelling demo mission
    on a flight this year, I have a sneaking suspicion you would then
    complain that our government was paying megadollars for a capability
    we should simply purchase from Russia.

    Another point is that while refuelling may be deemed "too dangerous"
    by some (just speculation on your part, I think) the 41B, 41C, 51I,
    61B, STS-37 and STS-49 EVAs each performed very ambitious, very complex
    tasks in orbit. 41G rehearsed orbital refueling using an inert gas.
    51D and STS-37 had unplanned EVA to complete the mission, so did SkyLab 2.
    Refuelling is not the only major requirement for long-term spacecraft,
    things tend to break down sooner or later, and right now the U.S. has
    a tremendous advantage in knowing how to do major repairs on orbit
    (Solar Max, Leasat, Palapa/Westar) Then there's Intelsat... where a crew
    actually bolted a new rocket onto an orbiting satellite, the significance
    and potential of this seems to have been lost on many people. Things did
    not go as planned, but IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. Don't forget that. Sure,
    launching a new satellite would have been cheaper than a Shuttle repair
    mission, but eventually there will be something up there that is not so
    easy or cheap to replace... like Space Station Freedom.

    And maybe I'm wrong, I don't have the figures handy, but didn't the
    U.S. log more EVA time in 1992 than did Russia?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:39:09 GMT
From: Hugh Emberson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:10:13 GMT, [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) said:

BW> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Some of the specific R&D projects I have worked on include: SeaFire
>Fire Control System (Navy), Integrated CNI Avionics (USAF), a Digital
>Map system I can't remember the name of (USAF), Pilot's Associate (DARPA/
>USAF), Emergency Procedures Expert System (TI IR&D), Multi-Agent Planning
>(TI IR&D), Mission Planning Workstation (TI IR&D).
>
BW>     Welll, Allen, I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer (hate those
BW> li'l electrons!!), but I would propose that there are some qualitative
BW> differences in forging a large, mechanical assembly out of steel,
BW> aluminum, and composites, compared to primarily software
BW> constructions.  [...]

Actually constructing large programs is not much different, if its
done properly.  If its not done properly then the mess is a lot worse.

There is a whole branch of computer science called "software
engineering" which aims to make the construction of large programs as
much like constructing a bridge as possible.

Hugh

--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:35:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>As I have stated on earlier posts DC-X is a 1/3 scale model.  A proof of
>concept and NOT a NASA program.  Put a man in there and it's a whole new
>show...

Although Pete Conrad, who's senior test pilot for the project, has been
heard to observe that the size and weight of the DC-X emergency parachute
pack are about those of a Pete-Conrad-sized pilot, and if you took out
the chute it wouldn't be hard to man the thing...
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 05:37:35 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Paul Dietz writes:
>
> Perhaps more significant for airlaunch than the rather small velocity
> gain is the lower atmospheric pressure.  This enables one to put a
> larger nozzle on the first stage, improving Isp, or operate the first
> stage at lower pressure, reducing the weight of the casing (for
> solids).
>


        In addition, there is a very substantial gain in air launching
through the avoidance of "G losses".  In order to get out of the lower
atmosphere, typical launchers will fly nearly vertically for a minute or so
and then fly a couple of more minutes at a constantly decreasing upwards
angle.  All the time a rocket is pointed in any way up, a portion of the
available thrust simply goes to keeping the rocket from falling backwards.
Each second that a rocket thrust vertically, it "loses" 9.8 m/s in velocity.
Air launching avoids much of the vertical climb out of the lower atmosphere.
Typical launchers starting at ground level suffer approximately 1200 m/s G
loss for the amount of time that the rocket is pointed wholly or partially
upwards during the ascent.  Air launching results in G losses of perhaps 800
m/s, for a gain of 400 m/s over a non-air launch (personal communication from
R. Salkeld, who has extensively studied air launching).

        Salkeld also indicates that for a streamlined vehicle which does not
depend on aerodynamic lift, there is a reduction in air resistance losses.
These are typically something like 200 m/s for a ground based launcher, but
are something like 100 m/s for air launchers.

      A tradeoff is involved between air resistance losses and G losses.  If
a vehicle is provided with wings, aerodynamic lift can provide an upwards
force to keep the vehicle from falling while it accelerates.  Since
aerodynamic lift is available, not so much rocket thrust needs to be oriented
upwards, and G losses are therefore sharply reduced.  However, the penalty
for this is drag, increasing the air resistance losses.  For the Pegasus, the
trade-off favors wings for a portion of the flight.

Air Lauch Advantages are therefore:

- velocity from airplane - roughly 200 m/s
- ability to use high expansion ratio nozzle and thus increase Isp
- lower G losses, for a saving of 400 m/s
- lower air resistance losses, for a saving of 100 m/s
- easy application of wings in first stage of vehicle, when warranted
- flexibility of launch site



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 21:10:48 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
|Spencer) wrote:
|
|SPACE STATION FREEDOM'S LAUNCH SCHEDULES HAVE NEVER CHANGED SINCE THE
|BEGINNING OF PHASE C...I.E., 1988. It was always planned to get a
|man-tended platform by 96-97 time period.....
|
|Why do those who post on SSF think that the schedule has changed????!!!!


For those of us with longer senses of history.
As I believe, when Reagan first proposed SSF, it was in 1983,
it was supposed to be 8 billion dollars and fly by 1990, with Manned
permanent presence by 1992.

the program is now at 32 billion dollar estimates.  the size of the
proposed station has been cut by 3
and they are proposing 1996.  isn't that a slip?
Shuttle slipped like crazy, so has SSF.
and it's not the congresses fault.  they have agreed to spend 4 times what they were
asked for, to get 1/2
what they wanted.This problem is due to NASA
notanyone else.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:55:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

George William Herbert) writes the obituary of Fred:
>>A source that I consider reliable inside NASA HQ has stated
>>that Freedom is indeed dead.

and Allen W. Sherzer follows with:
> I have confirmed this with both NASA and Congressional sources. [...]
> One source also said this is a probation period for Goldin. If he pulls
> this off, he can keep is job.

To which I'll add yet another quotation from WHAT'S NEW of 12 Feb 1993:

    Meanwhile, no one from the White House has spoken to NASA
    Administrator Daniel Goldin.  His job has been twice offered to
    Sally Ride, but she has twice refused.  Former deputy
    administrator J.R. Thompson is now rumored to be the front runner,
    but Thompson, who is respected for his frankness, is a space
    station advocate.  Dr. Kevorkian might be a better choice.

To ward off anticipated commentary, I realize that Robert L. Park, the
author of WHAT'S NEW, is a very opinionated guy.  I just happen to trust
his information even though I sometimes cringe at his invective.

But I thought the Kevorkian idea to be at least worth a smile.  Anybody seen
Dr. Jack around NASA HQ lately?

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 04:55:47 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>If people are going to defend the shuttle as this marvelous
>workshop,  then i suggest we see it do some real workshop
>type activities.  Refueling satellites is a very reasonable
>mission,  and it seems beyond the shuttles capacity.
>
>I would view this example as a reasoonable argument that the
>shuttle is a lousy workshop.

Good suggestion...a few years late, but still a good suggestion. There
have been several fluid transfer experiments flown on the shuttle. Very
useful technology has resulted. One that comes to mind is the OSCRS,
Orbital Spacecraft Consumables Resupply System. In this experiment,
hydrazine was transfered repeatedly between propellant tanks placed in a
special pallet in the payload bay. EVA crewmen made fluid connections
for the transfers while on orbit. Valuable information was obtained on
heat transfer, venting and  thermal stratification during
pressurizations and depressurizations. Special fluid connectors have
been developed and continue to be developed for handling difficult
fluids such as propellants and cryogens in space. Refueling satellites
is indeed a very reasonable mission,  and it seems easily accomplished
with the shuttle's capacity. I think a satellite or two have couplings
for just this eventuality. What could be more "real."
Perhaps a little objective research is in order before we burn the books
of knowledge that the shuttle program has written. Gosh, the very
example cited here to condemn the shuttle as a "lousy workshop" is in
reality a great example of why the shuttle program is a real bargain.
Could this experiment and demonstration have meant as much, and cost as
little if performed another way? I think not.
The most expensive technology is forgotten or shelved technology. One
can say that the shuttle is now expensive to run and made of outdated
technology. Uhh,,,,yea, I guess thats right. In the same light I can
scoff at my neighbor and his four year old antique home computer, while
I hold out for more power and lower cost. But you and I should think
carefully about how much benefit was obtained and is still coming from
that old bucket while snipers sit on the sidelines with only inaccurate
criticism in hand. Unlike the computer case though, as Gary C. pointed
out, "The Shuttle is a marvelous workshop *solely* because it is the
*only* heavy lift workshop *flying* regularly to various orbits..."..
*Someone else* may buy those computers to drive up capabilities and
drive down costs but in the space biz, we're it. You wait, you lose.
I'm sure you had a better idea when the shuttle was being developed;
Heck we all did , lots of 'em. But there is only one shuttle and it is
the best that we could make it. I'm all for moving on to something
better. You do it by building on what is past, taking advantage of what
you have. The word "useless" has no place in the process.
            NOTHING IS USELESS
Case in point, even your criticism is useful. It shows me that what a
person doesn't know can hurt everybody. I urge critics to ask questions
and become informed first and then shoot only if necessary. Chances are
you don't have to shoot and everybody is the wiser for the quentions
answered. Shooting first makes the questions useless and regret
probable.
Dennis W.
*    "Perfectly good arguments are often spoiled by         *
*    someone who knows what they're talking about." Auth unkn    *

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:33:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space IR telescope schemes (was Re: HST repair mission)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I wrote:
> |> To continue to the next logical step, we need to build and launch SIRTF.
> |> The IRTF (Infra-Red Telescope Facility) on Mauna Kea will always be
> |> stymied by that same atmosphere.  Using what we've learned from HST we
> |> can build a high quality IR telescope for space observations.

and Dave Rickel replied:
> There was a proposal in SPACEFLIGHT a couple months back to build a large
> passively cooled IR telescope.  I seem to remember that they proposed sticking
> it in the L-2 spot (presumably the sun-earth L-2 spot).  Is this SIRTF, or
> something else?

Not the SIRTF I know of, but the planning for SIRTF is so nebulous right
now that it well may be a suggested modification.

> Anyway, the article mentioned that there is enough thermal noise that it
> really wasn't worthwhile cooling the mirror all the way down to liquid
> helium temperatures; if you can passively cool the mirror (they mentioned
> temperatures like 40-60 K) you are no longer limited by the amount of He
> you carry along (larger mirrors, longer liftimes).

Last I looked we cooled the detectors, not the mirror.  A mirror at 40 K
might do strange things.  (Anybody out there involved with SIRTF who
can comment on this?)

Hmmm.  I know of Platinum Silicide (Pt:Si) detectors that exist right now
using four stage thermoelectric cooling to get down to temperatures around
180 K.  Might be somebody's looking at a 5 or 6 stage cooling scheme.
TE cooling would solve a lot of servicing problems.  But with the advances
made over the last 10 or so years in closed cycle cryostatic refrigerators
I'd think you could fly a He cooled detector array and keep it cooled for
many years.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:38:51 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space IR telescope schemes (was Re: HST repair mission)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> ... if you can passively cool the mirror (they mentioned
>> temperatures like 40-60 K) you are no longer limited by the amount of He
>> you carry along (larger mirrors, longer liftimes).
>
>Last I looked we cooled the detectors, not the mirror.  A mirror at 40 K
>might do strange things...

If memory (of things like IRAS) serves, you have to cool the entire optics
assembly, including detectors and mirror(s), if you don't want thermal
emissions to swamp the incoming photons.

Passive cooling to 60K or thereabouts should not be hard, especially
since I think the L-2 point is in permanent shadow.  However, I don't
think SIRTF was going up that high.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 23:48:26 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >Question, so far I have not seen anything on the NEWS about SSTO, DC-X or DC-Y
> >or DC-1. Did I miss something or was I looking for the wrong thing??
>
> Many of us are working hard to get publicity. Recently yours truly was
> interviewed for a piece in a London newspaper for example.
>
> The real problem has been SDIO which is very reluctant to publicise the
> effort. This makes it hard to to much of what should be done.
>
I got two PR items on DC-X which I scanned in as GIF files...... an artists
rendition (looks weird!) and a photo/description of the actual model that
will fly.....
Tell me where to Put them......for FTPing

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 20:51:34 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Question, so far I have not seen anything on the NEWS about SSTO, DC-X or DC-Y
>or DC-1. Did I miss something or was I looking for the wrong thing??

No, you're probably just looking in the wrong place.  Delta Clipper has been
on pop science shows (I happended to see it on Beyond 2000 while I was channel
surfing) and it's getting impressive play in the space media.  It's only a
$60 million technology development program that hasn't wasted government funds,
threatend consumer saftey or caused an international incident.  Why should they
show it on prime time news?

>The media can be a
>friend and also an enemy..

For a while there, publicity was an enemy.  Folks in the program specifically
reqested that people keep quiet so they wouldn't attract the attention of
a budget wary congress.  Now there may be more need for public support, but
I'm not convinced a thirty second spot on Dateline would be helpful.

>Basically if people want to let someone know something, buy a radio/tv station.

Or form a tax exempt, non profit organization.  Reserve the auditiorium of your
library or civic center (for free).  Send out PSAs (for free), put up fliers
on bulletin boards (the kind with or without RAM :-) and voila, communication.
If you have a message, it's not that hard to get it out.  The hard part is
getting someone to pay attention.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 20:58:09 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??

Yes, the Cassini mission will drop a probe into Titan. Should be interesting.

>Is there any comets/meteors and such that go from near earth orbit that also
>pas by Titan? Maybe from Mars to Titan..

Can someone put this in the FAQ?  The answer is maybe, but why?  You can do
a flyby no matter where the asteroid is headed and hitching a ride doesn't help
much.  By the way, a meteor is shooting star in the atmosphere.  You mean
meteroid or asteroid.

>What moon was it that 2010 went to or near to..

The spacecraft in 2010 were in orbit around Io, a moon of Jupiter.  I think the
Discovery was headed towards Iapetus in the book version of 2001, but hey,
it's just a story.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:18:08 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: wind on the moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dillon Pyron,
[e-mail] writes:
>>What this film shows is the flag reacting to the rockets on the lunar
>>module as the module was taking off from the lunar surface.  In a
>>sense, the rocket exhaust could be considered a "wind", of a very
>>short duration.

Right; Another place to see an even more interesting effect like this is
on one of the skylab missions when the command/service module was flown
around the unmanned skylab for an inspection while maintaining a hundred
feet or so distance. Movies taken from the command module showed
multiple violent disturbences of the flimsy solar parasol (or parasail
or whatever it was called) looking like a sheet hit with a blank shotgun
blast. These blasts were caused by the hypersonic exhaust products of
the 100 lbf service module RCS thrusters ocasionally firing to maneuver
the craft in its flight around the lab. The blasts could be as short as
14 milliseconds.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 205
------------------------------