Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no357.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 05:07:20
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #357
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 24 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 357

Today's Topics:
        Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times? (3 msgs)
              Can we still build the Saturn V? (2 msgs)
                          Craf's penetrator
                        Goldin's remark on SSF
                              Grand Plan
                            Gravity waves
                 How big will you're space colony be?
                      How to cool Venus (2 msgs)
            Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
                          Luddites in space
                      Magellan Update - 03/22/93
           NASA Life Science Human Performance Research ??
                        Plans, absence therof
                      plans, and absence thereof
                 SR-71 Maiden Science Flight (2 msgs)
                         SSRT(DC-x&Y) slides
                 SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
                         SSX artilce in JPAS

    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: 23 Mar 93 09:04:30 GMT
From: Stewart T Fleming <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leigh Palmer) writes:

>times, but aluminum was not available in Elizabethan times any more than
>Macintoshes were.

Which is why, presumably, Sir Walter Raleigh used a cloak.

>Leigh

STF
--
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Top-down design is the enemy.
"What do you care what other people think ?" - A. Feynman
The Reality Distortion Field is ON.

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 14:08:50 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

[e-mail] (The Master) writes:
>Funny how at the time it would have cost an enormous amount of money
>and now it's so cheap.  It's almost like thinking of people drinking
>out of gold Coke cans in the future :)

Gold isn't very useful for Coke cans (not strong enough), but diamond
will be used for all sorts of things, once nanotech comes in.

--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 93 19:41:12 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ogckv$[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Pat)
writes:
|support it.  Aluminum was available in elizabethan times,  but the
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think what was meant was "Victorian Times".

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 13:45:56 GMT
From: David Drumheller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we still build the Saturn V?
Newsgroups: sci.space

   It always appeared to me that for boosting large payloads (e.g. a space
station or portion thereof) the shuttle is far too expensive.  Therefore,
people have suggested the `big dumb booster.'  Yet others have said the
development of such a booster would be expensive.

   My counter argument to this is to dust off the old blueprints for the
Saturn series and start building them again.  The technology may be close
to 30 years old, but so what?  They worked.  And there would be almost no
development cost.

   However, a friend of mine said that NASA (and/or the contractors) lost
the blueprints?  Is this true?  Have other's suggested the use of the
Saturn series, and then found that the plans have been lost?

Dave Drumheller
(...who happens to own a shinny new white 93 Saturn with four wheels.)

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 15:58:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we still build the Saturn V?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The House Science Committee Space Subcommittee had hearings on
this subject about 2 years ago. There is enough data available to
start Saturn production again.

However, it would cost $16 billion to begin production again and
each flight would cost $590 million (assuming a bulk buy of 50 launches).

Since there isn't anywhere near this level of demand this isn't a very
effective option.

Now parts of Saturn may be very salvagable. F-1 and J-2 engine production,
for example, could be restarted for a few tens of millions and F-1's could
be had for about $15M each which is reasonable competative.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------85 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:15:02 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Craf's penetrator

Henry Spencer:
>>I'd also note that CRAF was attempting to "stay within budget" by shedding
>>pieces as the overruns mounted.  For example, the penetrator got dropped
>>from the mission to save money.

Bill Higgins:
>Therefore the penetrator *didn't* get dropped from the mission?

Maybe it's stuck for the same reason as the Galielo HGA.  Oh, well,
at least they have another one they can drop at the next encounter :-)

Seriously, Bill, do you mean, since they overran the budget, they must
have kept the penetrators instead of cutting costs?  Or do you mean they
didn't drop the penetrators, alone, since the whole thing got dropped?
Or what?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 18:28:52 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin's remark on SSF

Goldin sez;
     "We could fight with each other, we could make fancy view graphs, we
could have leather briefcases, we could have patent leather shoes, we could go
rolling up to the Hill, we could make a lot of promises, we could get other
programs canceled, we could destroy careers. If you wear your corporate hat,
your center hat, if you wear a truss hat, if you wear a hat that has a solar
array, if you wear a hat that has your personal identification and ego on it,
you will destroy what we have. You'd better put on a baseball cap that says the
United States of America or we're not going to have a coherent space program."

Keith Mancus sez;
 >Given the infighting going on in this group, I'd say this is a timely
 >remark...

Only if you assume that Goals, Plans and Programs are the way to do it.
Since some of the 'infighting' is about that very assumtion, those on
the anti-GPP side won't see the infighting as the same problem, if they
think it's a problem at all.

One might even say that arguments over how best to spend the tax money
is as inherent a problem as a fickle congress or incompentencies due
to lack of competition in a monopoly situation.  Heck, I did say it :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:48:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Grand Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>>That is Fisk's opinion, not necessary widely shared.

>Actually, this is a well established fact.  Fisk, being in charge of
>NASA's science budget, is in a position to know such facts.

Well, Fisk is not an unbiased observer. It would be very much in his
interest to blame Congress.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------85 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:25:26 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity waves

C. Bass sez;
>>      The crucial point in my sentence above was unfortunately deleted.
>>      The beginning was along the lines 'if the wave travelled
>>      instantaneously'.  The sentiment was something like 'If a wave
>>      travels at infinite wavespeed, where's the wave?'
>>      Your ears are going to have a difficult time decomposing that
>>      oscillation.
>>
>>      You aren't suggesting that 'gravitons', whatever
>>      they may be, are propagated instantaneously are you?

What the hey, maybe they do. The instantaneous propogation of gravity
is no more untenable than the sudden creation of something the size
of the Universe.  Until we detect gravitons, we have no way of knowing
if gravity is fundamentally similar to other radiation, so assuming
as such may be incorrect.

T Smith sez;
>No I am not suggesting that. But I am saying that the wave that they are
>trying to detect is _not_ a graviton. Gravitons are something that will
>have to be detected in a particle accelerator the size of the solar system.
[...]

If the question here is about the detection of gravity waves, what about
the decrease in energy of the binary pulsar (whose name I can't remember)
that was consistent with the predicted radiation of gravity waves by same?
I.e. the radiation of G-waves was responsible for their orbital decay.

I'll find the reference, if you want.

Does this count?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 16:00:10 GMT
From: Jim Kissel <[e-mail]>
Subject: How big will you're space colony be?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Al Globus) writes:
: Every once in a while I design an orbital space colony.  I'm gearing up to
: do another one.  I'd some info from you. If you were to move
: onto a space colony to live permanently, how big would the colony have
: to be for you to view a permanent move as desirable?  Specifically,
:
: How many people do you want to share the colony with?
:     For example, 1000

10,000 -> 20,000

: What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?
:     For example, 2x2 kilometers.
:

about the size of Rama.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kissel                            Telephone [phone]
Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems                 344 850 461 (Direct line)
Systems Development Group             Fax       [phone]
Nixdorf House                         Domain     [e-mail]
Oldbury, Bracknell, Berkshire         UUCP       ....{ukc,athen}!sni!jlk
RG12 4FZ  Great Britain

Noli illegitimi carborundum!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:22:25 GMT
From: Rui Sousa <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:

   [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:

   >The alternative is to get rid of the CO2 some other way. Chemically,
   >the best thing to do with it is to turn it into carbonate ions (CO3).
   >If you bond a carbonate ion with pretty much anything you get a solid
   >(much of the Earth's crust is formed of carbonate rocks). The easiest
   >way to get carbonate ions is to get the extra oxygen from water, but
   >the alternative is to manage some sort of nCO2 -> mCO3 + pC process. I
   >don't know if this is energetically possible.

   The really fun part is getting the solid to stay solid (if I'm not
   mistaken, Venus' current surface temperature is high enough to bake the
   CO2 back out of carbonate rocks...).

Then you'd have to move Venus *a bit* away from the Sun, into the Ecosphere.
That would be somewhat more difficult.

Removing the CO2 would not be enough. Earth has almost no CO2 in its atmosphere
and has already a relatively high surface temperature.

Rui

--
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   [e-mail]

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 12:10:35 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> Rather than too much of the atmosphere being blown away, I suspect
> the reverse would be the problem. It would take some *really* big
> nuclear bombs to blow off 90% of the atmosphere. Certainly bigger
> than anything we have a clue about building. Maybe some sort of
> anti-matter bomb would work.


Actually, thermonuclear explosives should be *easier* to engineer as
they get larger.  The reason is fundamental.  The rate of reaction in
a plasma of a given composition and temperature is proportional to the
density.  The time available for the reaction to proceed, on the other
hand, is proportional to the linear dimensions of the plasma.  What
this means is that in small devices the fusion fuel must be highly
compressed (laser fusion plans are for fuel to be compressed to 1000x
its normal density).  In larger devices, lower compressions work; in
very large devices, no compression at all would be needed, just
heating to fusion temperatures.

The biggest fusion bomb ever detonated was 60 MT (a Soviet test).
This would be sufficient to ignite a large amount of uncompressed
fuel.

Antimatter would not be sensible, as it would be much too expensive
to make.

    Paul

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 17:44:47 GMT
From: Brian Yamauchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In the current issue of Time, there is a one-paragraph story that
mentions:

"At the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan... civilian workers have
been looting equipment, crippling the facility's launch pad in the
process.  The Russian space program is also involved in a feud with
the new Ukrainian state, which has its own space program.  A Russian
meteorological satellite was turned off in orbit, so Ukraine couldn't
recover weather data from it.  Some of the stolen Baikonur equipment
has mysteriously resurfaced in Ukraine..."

Does anyone have more details, either about the looting at Baikonur,
the seriousness of the "crippling" of the "launch pad", or about the
extent of the Ukrainian space program?

--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 09:59:12 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Luddites, 1811: bands of hand-weavers and sympathizers who went around
destroying automated textile machinery, insisting that what people
really want are hand-crafted works, and they don't care how warm it
keeps them at night, or whether they can afford it.   Ignoring economics
at every turn, they argued that machines "can't replace human skill", and
insisted on subsidies of the old technology, and/or slowing down the new
technology to redress their greivances.  The judgement of history is
that they were a bunch of whining idiots.

Luddites, 1993: bands of astronaut and their groupies who go around
calling automated spacecraft "toasters", "black box brownies",
etc., who insist that the vast bulk of NASA funds should be devoted
to their projects while Halley flyby, CRAF, etc. are cancelled and
other planetary projects are grossly misdesigned to fit on astronaut
carrying launchers, or are delayed.  Luddites rail against the alleged
"failures of AI" while Japan's car makers kick our butts by installing
robots, insist that what people "really" want is to see their beloved
astronauts in space, and don't car how useful it is or whether they
can afford it.  Ignoring economics at every turn, they insist on massive
government subsidies for their bizarrely expensive, obsolete technologies
to redress their greivances.

Hopefully with Truly ad nauseum out of there, the worst of the
Luddite destruction of NASA is over.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 10:53:32 GMT
From: Nikolaus Pollak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Ron Baalke ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager
:
:                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
:                            March 22, 1993
:
: 1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, gathering
: gravity data in its fourth 243-day cycle of Venus.  All starcals (star
: calibrations) over the weekend were successful.  There was a TWTA
: (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier) spurious shut-off earlier this morning,
: which was corrected automatically.
:
: 2.  There was no commanding of the spacecraft since Friday, and none is
: planned for today.  Tomorrow the high rate gyro biases will be
: uplinked in the preparation for the high rate gyro calibration test
: starting Wednesday.
:
: 3.  Magellan has operated using low rate gyro biases through most of
: the mission to date, so it has not been necessary to calibrate the
: gyros in high rate mode.  But the aerobraking experiment which will
: start in late May has a moderate probability of pushing the attitude
: control into the range where the high rate mode is needed.
:
: 4.  The 24th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston was
: attended by several Magellan scientists who presented technical
: papers.  The Magellan exhibit was of considerable interest to the
: conference participants.
:
: 5.  A memorial session on the Geology of Venus was held on Monday in
: tribute to Valery Leonidovich Barsukov, the late director of the V. I.
: Vernadsky Institute in Moscow.  The session was chaired by J. W. Head
: and R. S. Saunders.  Academician Basurkov was very active in promoting
: international cooperation in planetary exploration and made possible
: the sharing of Russian data on Venus exploration.
:
: 6.  Magellan has completed 7042 orbits of Venus since August 10, 1990.
: Magellan is 64 days from the end of Cycle-4.
:      ___    _____     ___
:     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
:     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
:  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
: /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
: |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.
:


NASA certainly had to study possibilities to keep alive such complicated
systems (as magallan for example) for as much time as possible.
This is the theory of High-Available-Systems. Do know any literature
about this kind of problems ?

Thanks in advance for any hint

+---------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Nikolaus Pollak            |    SIEMENS Austria Corp.   |
| Email: [e-mail]         |    PSE 2354                |
| Phone: [phone]        |    Gudrunstr. 11.          |
| Fax:   [phone]        |    A-1100 Wien             |
+---------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 14:47:37 GMT
From: Kenton Brett Kirksey <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Life Science Human Performance Research ??
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone know the specific areas of human performance research that NASA
 is working on in its Life Sciences division (either at Johnson, Ames, or
Southwestern)??  I am looking seriously at this field and would like any
information I could get on it.

Thank you,
Brett Kirksey
Dept. of Exercise Science
Appalachian State University

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 18:36:35 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof

D Mahoney:
>>>I wasn't aware that your one penny of every dollar of tax money was
>>> bigger than the one penny of every tax dollar Mr. Wingo pays.

N Szabo
>>This is a truly stupid comment.  Wingo gets 100% of his paycheck
>>from the IRS and pays back 20-30%.  BFD.

D Mohoney
Wingo isn't an indentured slave to the U.S. govenment.  He has the right to say
>what he wants as a citizen of his country.

You are ignoring a conflict of interest, though.  Since Wingo works for the
people that collect my money, his voice will carry further than mine.  Since
it's my money, I should have a greater say.  Since Dennis usually advocates
greater powers for the taxing authorities, he is also abusing his position,
since he is an agent for the taxing authorities.

He has a right to say what he wants, as a citizen.  He does not have a
right to say what he wants, as a gov agent.  To do so is to invert the
moral situation.  Citizens direct government, not vice-versa, in the US.
(At least, that's how it was designed.)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 09:23:29 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:


>CRAF

Water under the bridge.  Mariner Mark II was designed for a launcher
over 10* cheaper than today's Shuttle, for a budget about 5* larger
than NASA's current planetary science budget, and with 70's-era
tech.  (And, quite frankly it wouldn't be a big loss if Cassinni
was cancelled in favor of funding for NEAR, MESUR, lunar orbiter,
SIRTF or data analysis).  The Observer-class has also seen its
day pass. Future missions should use F-SAT, the Iridium bus,
Brilliant Eyes/Clementine, or something similarly cheap, small & fast.


So, there is plenty of room for revamping future JPL plans and
visions to take advantage of future technology, and they're starting
that process now.

I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   There isn't, from
what I can tell reading their papers, any significant input on oil
companies.  (It would be great, for example, to get oil company
engineers designing comet volatile extraction equipment, but LPI
hasn't done anything of the sort).

I'm not just blaming LPI here; throughout most of the aerospace
industry work on "space resources" is done to create justification for
future contract work, without any appreciation of what it really
takes to have industry in orbit, what kind of economics are involved
and how that influences the engineering decisions, and without
appreciation of the vast diversity of environments available in
various parts of the solar system.  The result is a vast pile of
recyclable paper.

Here's where JPL can come in: take a fresh approach that encompasses
the vast variety of solar system environments instead of the narrow
Apollo-inspired, regolith-based studies that have been done so far.
"Extract He-3 from regolith.  Get LOX from regolith.  Build solar
power satellites from regolith."  The lack of imagination, comprehension
for economics, and plain incompetence in the so-called "space
resources" work to date is astounding.  There is _plenty_ of room for
fresh minds here, and JPL with its planetary scientists, microgravity
scientists etc. is in a good position to move in and revolutionize the
field, and the entire face of space development, if it so wishes.



--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 10:45:14 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bob Combs) writes:
 >>it seems incredibly unlikely that the participating scientists would
 >>ride in either one. They are superfluous and very difficult to
 >>accommodate on either vehicle.
 >So are Congressmen, and other high level beauracrats.

BUT, the difference here is that the astronomers involved in
this program are NOT Congressman or "high level beauracrats".

 >There was a list of congressmen and other beauracrats that took
 >a ride in the SR-71.  The list had about 30 people on it.

There is actually a total of around 100 "VIPs" who were (damn)
lucky enough to get a ride in the SR-71.  In addition to the
Senators/Congressmen, there were also a lot of Generals...

 >Besides, the Rear Seat Occupant (RSO) has the responsibility
 >for operating the instruments.

Reconnaissance Systems Operator.

 >I'm sure the scientists are riding.  It wont be an empty seat!

Certainly NOT an empty seat, but the scientists involved
are Flight Test Engineers, not astronomers.

 >They'll need a lot of training, but if NASA is like the air
 >force, they will have their scientists up there!.

NASA has trained two FTEs for flying those back seats.

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 13:25:51 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bob Combs) writes:

>The press release that I read presented the SR-71 flights
>as a cost effecient means for collecting data.  In 1984
>when I worked on the SR-71 at Beale Air Force Base, an SR-71
>flight cost $1,000,000 -- each.

Balloon flights cost a few hundred thousand dollars each.  (For
20 million cubic foot balloons going up to 120,000 feet and
staying there for between a few hours and a couple of days.)
This does not include the payload cost.

--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 16:18:19 GMT
From: Donald Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSRT(DC-x&Y) slides
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>Overhead slides describing the DC-X and DC-Y programs have been uploaded
>for anonymous FTP at bongo.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.13) in pub/Delta
>Clipper/ DC-X/SSRT slides.

I've mirrored this onto
    tezuka.rest.ri.cmu.edu    (128.2.209.227)
    pub/space/deltaclipper
--
Don        D.C.Lindsay    Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 13:45:26 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:

>My point is that there is no refurbishing....just refueling.... [for DC]

Well that's not strictly true (you would need to repeal the second law
of thermodynamics for that). It's just that DC souldn't need refurbishing
after every flight (or at least not much).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------85 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 14:36:51 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSX artilce in JPAS
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ok, try again (the Computer Nebelungen have been rebooting the system)
So in case my previous posts were mixed up. IN reply to Henry Spencers
comment about Max Hunter's article.

Max Hunter has an article in the SUMMER 1992 issue of the Journal of
the Practical Applications in Space). This was published late last fall.
Vol 3 issue no 4. This mag is published by the High Frontier Inc. of
Washington  D.C. . This issue was a special issue of articles relating to
their Space Policy 2000- prime document and contains papers by Graham, Webb
Hunter, Glaser, and a critique of of the SSTO concpet by the Space
Transportation Group. Oh and a little piece by yours truly.

The editor is on bix at [e-mail] from internet.

--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 357
------------------------------