Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no397.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu,  1 Apr 93 05:10:44
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #397
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  1 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:
                    Atlas rocket question (2 msgs)
         Clued-In Higgins, et al-isms (was Re: UARS status?)
    First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
                      Flame Derby quarter finals
                            Guns for Space
                           Jules Verne Gun
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
    NASA overruns (was: First Mission  of the Small Expendable...)
          Programme info: Workshop on AI and KBSs for Space
                      Question on Cassini Radar
                       Space Research Spin Off
                      Sr-71 in propoganda films?
                  Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
           the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
                         Why is Venus so bad?
                  Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power

    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: 31 Mar 93 16:13:15 GMT
From: Rob Unverzagt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas rocket question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
> In article <1pa57o$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> |>
> |>A question is asked about the configuration of an atlas.
> |>
> |>Arentt those Boost engines?  THey  help at liftoff and get dropped?
>
> The question was about the little flames shooting out at an angle.  Those are
> called "verniers" and are used to stabilize and stear.  They don't provide much
> thrust as such things go.
>
> |>I read in this weeks news, that the ATLAS-Centaur for UFO-NAVY
> |>Dropped into a bad orbit due to a failure in these engines.
> |>
> |>They apparently burned at only 65% power, consuming fuel at too high
> |>a rate.   The centaur corrected some for the failure,  but UFO
> |>is now sitting in an orbit with too low an apogee.
> |>
>
> I never saw anything about what the problem was with the recent Atlas-Centaur
> failure,

The rumor is that there was an "oxidizer regulator" anomaly in the
sustainer engine.

>  but the Atlas is a rather odd beast in that it has a single engine in
> the middle called a sustainer which starts before liftoff and runs all the way
> to orbit (or till the end of Atlas-powered flight, anyway).  Then there is
> an engine on either side of the sustainer which burns for only the beginning of
> the flight.  Then these engines are jettisoned to save weight.  That may be
> what
> you are talking about.
>
> Yes, I imagine McD-D is probably really concerned now, though the previous two
> failures were in the Centaur, not the Atlas.
>

I imagine that McD-D is pretty happy, given that they make the Delta
and some payloads might jump ship from the Atlas (which is made by
General Dynamics) to the Delta.

Shag

--
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  [e-mail]   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
[e-mail] |

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 06:35:00 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas rocket question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
>In article <1pa57o$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>I never saw anything about what the problem was with the recent Atlas-Centaur
>failure, but the Atlas is a rather odd beast in that it has a single engine in
>the middle called a sustainer which starts before liftoff and runs all the way
>to orbit (or till the end of Atlas-powered flight, anyway).  Then there is
>an engine on either side of the sustainer which burns for only the beginning of
>the flight.  Then these engines are jettisoned to save weight.  That may be
>

According to the space news article,  the Atlas  has an unusual configuration.

It has a two engine three nozzle  configuration.  Now that's an odd one.

Does it use both engines in  the sustainer,  and then the boost nozzles
just drop off.   If so,  are the boost nozzles just to help give mass flow?


>Yes, I imagine McD-D is probably really concerned now, though the previous two
>failures were in the Centaur, not the Atlas.

Actually,  I think GD makes the Atlas.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 04:40:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: Clued-In Higgins, et al-isms (was Re: UARS status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>In article <24MAR199317112710@stdvax>, abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
>> I believe so...GSFC's Director's Weekly's haven't reported any
>                 ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>
>Is this publication available on-line?  Any chance we could arrange to have it
>posted to sci.space.news?
>
The Director's Weekly is only for internal use (too many contracturally
sensitive statements like "We are internally reviewing Companies X and
Y for the XYZ Program I&T contract", and the like).  I've heard the
nasa.nasamail.gsfc newsgroup can be the source for some info, but I'm
not sure what you're looking for.  For those who are interested in
monthly progress, the Goddard News includes a one-page "What's Up"
column which has _honest_ one paragraph accounts of recent spacecraft
progress.  S/C include UARS, GRO (er, Compton), HST, EUVE, TDRS-6, and
SAMPEX (first of the quicker, cheaper, better Small Explorers).

For info on a subscription, call Fred Brown at [phone]. I
realize its not nearly as nice as JPL's FTP site, but its a start.

BTW, Bill Higgins was the only person to show any interest in GSFC
space programs.  I realize that GSFC is a low-key (read: "Who cares
about Explorers and Earth-pointers?") NASA Center, but I did expect
a _bit_ more interest. Is there more out there, or should Bill and
I just send notes back and forth when he's got a question???


oh yeah, wanted to add something else...

>Wait your turn, punk.  There are lots of old-timers who haven't been
>honored with "Clueless Spencerisms" or "Clueless Higginsisms" yet.
>
>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | According to the doctrine

Thanks for the lesson in flame etiquette, and for fulfilling my
request.  I will treat you in the future with all due respect as
one of my elders.:-)

David Ward  [e-mail]
the Punk at NASA/GSFC

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:22:17 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew C. Welch) writes:

>First of all, private companies do not have to deal with procurement
>regulations which make the whole system extremely complicated and expensive.

That is true but govenrment need not either. SDIO, for example, uses
different regulations and as a result pays far less for their work and
brings it in on time. NASA could run its programs the way SDIO does if
it wanted.

>Perhaps a solution would be for Congress to let NASA (or any other agency)
>conduct business the way they choose while at the same time holding them
>responible for the results.

Gee... what a radical idea! That is how the government run DC project
works.

>This system would allow NASA the freedom to
>be competitive with private companies while at the same time preventing
>NASA from pointing fingers at congress.

That's the rub. It is a lot safer to go with things as they are where you
have a safe job and nobody cares if you do anything.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------77 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 18:25:38 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby quarter finals

>>Bill again;
>>>What do you think, George, are pat and Steinn promising new contenders
>>>in the Flame Derby?

Tom sez;
>>Well, Pat, yes, but I'd have to go with Fred McCall over Steinn :-)
>>Sorry Steinn.

Fred Responds;
>But I don't remember you being asked, Tommy (unless you changed your
>name to George when nobody was looking).  Given what I've seen from
>you over the years, I think you're more a candidate than a voter.

Oh my God!  I'm really sorry.  I know how frowned upon it is to offer an
opinion on someone elses thread, especially one so serious as, uh, let
me look here, oh yeah, "Flame Derby".  Please, Fred and everyone, accept
my humble apology for being so blatantly out of line.

Happy now Fred?  I hope so, since I'd like to help you keep your contentless,
personal, unfunny posts to a minimum, and apparently, I'm responsible for
this one.  You got me, I overstepped bounds, but let's not rub my face in it,
OK?  I've got my pride, too, so please let me off easy this time.

(The Flame Derby thread was a joke, BTW)

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 15:41:14 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns for Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sorry about Key Words!
There has been a lot of work over the years on using a Gun to
launch space payloads. The Harp project under G. Bull launched
payloads to 130 Kms from Barbadoes using "Ole Betsy", two 16
inch naval guns butted together. Accelerations up to 5000 G's
are acceptable if you want to launch solid fuel rockets, after that
the grains come unstuck. This was the priciple behind "Babylon" of
the Iraquis. Really a static charge, plenum chamber, rocket launcher
rather than a conventional gun.
    The Germans in the 2 world war used their Millipede, or Hochsdruck-
pump cannon to bombard Antwerp, and the principle could be re-tried.
More interesting and practicable would be the "Ram Tube" being developed
by Prf. Herzberg at Washington University in Seattle, or the electromagnetic
coil gun under study at Sandia Labs..
Incidently I am told that a nuke launcher was accidently created when
a 'very heavy' metal cover on the bore tube for an underground test
was blown off. Last seen going up at an estimate velocity of about
twice escape!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 15:28:09 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jules Verne Gun
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Didn't  the US already (inadvertantly) lob an object upwards
at  70km/s?  Something to  do  with the cap of a underground nuclear
test shaft...

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 11:19:22 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|In article <1p7fqc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|
|>Now what SPace NEws said, is that they are concerned about instrument
|>failure while waiting for the Dust to settle.   Is this true?
|>Are they really concerned about instrument failure?
|
|There is no concern for instrument failure, the science team just wants
|to get started as soon as possible.  There are two periods next year where
|science data collection will be suspended or minimal: during the solar
|conjuction period in December/January, and during the Mars dust storm
|season that runs roughly from February to August.
|

Either I misinterpreted teh space news article (maybe it was AW&ST)
or they were putting more play onto the story.  Hardly the first case
of journalistic over-exageration.

|>And if that is the case, could they have planned the mission to avoid the
|>dust season?
|
|Predicting dust storms on Mars isn't an exact science.  The bigger
|contraint is the launch window to Mars which occurs about every two years.
|

Yep,  the hohmann orbit comes in every 2 years,  but  they aren't
quite in a hohmann orbit.  Something about this requiring more energy
from the Launcher,  but a lower energy braking orbital burn.
I wasn't sure if they could have played around with the flight
parms  to  miss the dust storms  a little more.  But then Orbital mechanics is
not an area of strength for me.

|>ALso,  it seems to me, that fuel is a real precious
|>resource.  After the mapping is done,  reserve fuel could
|>be saved for  orbit changes,  or to improve mapping of the moons phobos
|>and deimos.
|
|There will still be enough fuel for an extended mission after the primary
|mission ends in 1995.  This assumes though that the spacecraft won't be
|turned off due to lack of funding.

Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:18:28 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA overruns (was: First Mission  of the Small Expendable...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>Sorry Dennis. For most projects NASA gets what they want but still
>>generally run over and take longer. Examples:

>>1. ASRM (also known as the "Jamie Lee Whitten Memorial Pork Delivery
>>   System). This project ALWAYS gets as much or more than they ask for...

>Remember that NASA did not want this and left it out of the budget and
>still it was crammed down their throats by congress.

Not true. NASA has asked for ASRM funding each and every year. It is
true that last year the budget submitted by OMB didn't include ASRM
but the NASA request included it and they testified before congress
that they wanted it.

NASA wanted it and it wasn't crammed down their throats by Congress.

>Also I think you should look at the numbers on the budget. I don't think
>they always got what they wanted.

Not only did they get what they wanted, the sometimes got more. In
1990, for example, funds where transfered from SEI to EOS and ASRM
giving ASRM about 25% more than they asked for.

>>3. Advanced turbopumps. Overrun by over 500% yet they got not only all
>>   the funds but even got the scope of the project reduced.

>I don't think so on this one. From what I remember, the budget has always
>been underfunded from what the folks here at MSFC asked for.

That's NASA, not Congress. Turbopumps aren't a line item. The only
management by Congress as far as I know was directing NASA to halt
development of the hydrogen pump (which shouldn't affect cost of the
remaining work).

BTW, NASA Associate Administrator places the blame for this on NASA for
underestimating requirements and costs. Can't blame Congress for this one.

>>4. A GAO study found that over half of the NASA contracts overrun by
>>   a significant amount.

>I wonder how that would work out if you restricted it to non micromanaged
>contracts.

Wouldn't have much impact. Congress simply doesn't go into that much
detail.

>Also it would be instructive to see how much other government
>operations such as |HUD and others overrunn as a percentage of contracts.

I care about space, not HUD. Pointing to others doing an even worse job
won't mean a thing.

>>5. According to the NASA cost model, the Wake Shield Facility should
>>   cost $93M to build (before overruns). A private company is building
>>   the exact same thing for $11M.

>All depends on how you verify the work.

Apparently the NASA way costs several times as much as the commercial
way but doesn't seem any better. Looks like a NASA problem to me.

>It is funny that I am seeing a lot
>of last minute hassles by a certain NASA center on one of my payloads.
>The "commercial" procurement allowed us to drop some of the more stupid
>rules on how to put together hardware. Well at the last minute Center X is
>going orbital on our engineering. All of this work will not be charged
>against our "commercial" contract but against Shuttle operations. I wonder
>how often this happens and how this impacts the shuttle program as a
>whole.

So your saying that NASA is making you do a bunch of pointless tests
and then covering up the costs by using accounting methods which would
get a contractor thrown in jail if he or she tried it.

Sounds like a NASA problem to me.

>>6. The NASA cost model says that SpaceHab should cost $1.13 billion to
>>   build. A private company is building it for $153 million.

>Funny that it is this very facility that I am talking about above.

Not the same thing Dennis. Your talking about operations and I am
talking development. The fact remains that a private company spent
$153 million to build what NASA would take $1.13 BILLION to build (not
counting overruns and funny accounting you allude to above).

Spacehab couldn't use NASA methods to hide the costs. Their investors,
auditors, and the feds wouldn't let them.

>IUt is
>funny how money and chargers can be pushed around to make one or another
>organization look good or bad depending on how the political wind is blowing.

Only if your NASA. The rest of us must obey the law.

>I agree that there are times where NASA completly and totally screws up. We
>all do, even Allen BUT it is also true that the likelyhood of coming in
>on time and under budget is drastically reduced by the interference by
>Congress.

Not always. NASA spent $5 billion and five years on a station which was,
according to one Houston engineer, "...broken from the start" (see
Avation week, Nov, 12, 1990 page 26). This was a station for which
"proper integration of the current design has been totally lacking" (IBID).

Yet NASA wanted to spend another $35 billion on the same design. It looks
to me like Congress prevented the mother of all overruns by 'micromanaging'
a redesign.

>I am not saying NASA is blameless. In the commercial world, when a company
>screws up, it goes to the bottom line and in many cases the company
>ceases to exist. I have seen it happen many many times. When NASA screws up
>it is blamed and all kinds of fix it ideas are offered.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problem is that the blame is usually Congress and the fix is 'lots more
$$$$'.

>results. Case in point is the success of MacDac in the Delta program and
>in the DC program. The same company using the same management style and
>approach has screwed the C-17 so bad it may never be fixed and has...

No Dennis, the management styles are very very different. C-17 is run
the way federal projects are generally run. Not so with DC.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------77 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 15:00:57 GMT
From: Joachim Fuchs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programme info: Workshop on AI and KBSs for Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Based Systems for Space
                      - 4th Workshop -

                   May 17th - 19th, 1993

                     ESTEC, Noordwijk
                     The Netherlands

                       Organized by

                  THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
         Simulation & Electrical Facilities Division
                   Technical Directorate


Purpose
=======
The European Space Agency (ESA) has for many years
pursued activities in Artificial Intelligence and Knowl-
edge Based Systems for Space. The technology has
already been successfully applied in several domains and
is now widely considered a viable option in many devel-
opments.

The objective of this workshop is to obtain an active
exchange of information within the European AI com-
munity, within industry as well as within ESA. Not only
increasing awareness of the new developments and tech-
nologies play an important role, but inputs obtained in
this workshop will also serve ESA to harmonize and
standardize the developments in Artificial Intelligence
for European Space programmes.

This programme reflects the main interests of the
Agency in this workshop. The first day will be dedicated
to the use of AI techniques in applications. The second
day is entirely dedicated to specialized sessions and
Round Table discussions, featuring some of the present
activities of ESA/ESTEC. The final day will mainly con-
centrate on Methodology aspects of Artificial Intelli-
gence.


Organizing Committee
====================
U. Mortensen, ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Chairman)
F. Allard, ESA/ESTEC
E. Bornschlegl, ESA/ESTEC
F.-J. Demond, ESA/EAC
H.A. Laue, ESA/ESOC
A. Moya, Commission of the European Communities (DG XIII)
G. Muhlhauser, ESA/ESRIN
S. Valera, ESA/ESTEC
J. Fuchs, ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Organizer)


Programme
=========
The general schedule of the workshop is as follows:

Monday:
    Registration and Welcome speech
    Session I: General (Plenary)
    Session II: Applications (Plenary)
Monday evening:
    Cocktail

The Tuesday is dedicated for Round Table Discussions. The
subjects chosen are the following:
    Session III: Model-Based Reasoning (Parallel)
    Session IV: Knowledge Reuse (Parallel)
    Session V: Planning (Parallel)

The morning sessions are intended to provide a certain background
of the subjects to be discussed in the afternoon. They serve as
well to introduce some of the participants and their particular
interests.

After the lunch break the moderators of the different parallel
sessions will introduce to the discussion groups, and - depending
on interest and breadth of the field - possibly several working
groups will be initiated in order to discuss issues raised in the
morning sessions.

At the end of the day there will be a plenary session with a short
summary of the results obtained in the discussions.

Wednesday:
    Session VI: Verification and Validation (Plenary)
    Session VII: Methodology (Plenary)

The total number of papers presented will be 40.
There will be an area dedicated to posters and demonstrations.

General Information
===================
The Workshop is free of charge. Working language will be English.

If you would like to have more detailed information, (complete
programme...) please contact either:
    ESA/ESTEC
    Conference Bureau
    P.O. Box 299
    NL-2200 AG Noordwijk
    The Netherlands
    Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
or the Organizer:
    ESA/ESTEC-WGS
    Joachim Fuchs
    P.O.Box 299
    NL-2200 AG Noordwijk
    The Nethrlands
    Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
    email: [e-mail]

Registration should be sent to the Conference Bureau. ESTEC has as
well a Hotel Reservation service (Tel: [phone]).
Registrations should be made by April 16th (particularly important
for hotel reservations).

=========================================================================
= esa/estec-WGS             c/o Joachim Fuchs                           =
= Keplerlaan 1              Telephone: [phone]                   =
= Postbus 299               Telefax:   +31/1719-85419                   =
= NL-2200 AG Noordwijk      Email:     [e-mail]   or    =
= The Netherlands                      [e-mail]        =
=========================================================================

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 04:09:42 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Cassini Radar
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Derry) writes:
> David Seal ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : That's a neat question.  For now we are not planning to point it at anything
> : except Titan.
>
> Would the radar be of any benefit in trying to characterize Saturn's rings?
> I.e. distributions of particle (or boulder?) size, etc?

If I may speculate here (David can give us the *correct* answer),
radar would be useful, in principle, for looking at the rings, but
Cassini will not get close enough to the rings to use it.   Recall
that this is true for the surfaces of moons as well, other than Titan.

The performance of radar is limited in range and Cassini's must be
rather close to its targets, within a few thousand kilometers.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 15:34:42 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

For my money the most important piece of space research spin off to
date (rather before the time of NASA) is Australia. NSW was colonised
because of the excellent maps produced by the Endurance expedition
lead by Capt. Cook. The primary mission objective of that voyage was
to observe the transit of Venus from Tahiti. This in turn was only
one of many observations taken around the world to estimate the
Astronomical Unit, that is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
If measuring the distance from the Earth to the Sun is not space
research I do not know what is! Incidently the Endurance was a second
hand coal ship that was impounded by the Portungese in Brazil because
thye could not believe that such a scruffy vessel would be used byt
the Royal Navy (but it was for scientific research).
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 18:06:00 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sr-71 in propoganda films?

Here's an obscure question, for anyone interested:

I recently saw "Atomic Cafe", an interesting film about the history of the
atomic bomb, as told through TV, propaganda, press releases, etc.  There
is a scene, maybe 3/4 of the way through the movie that has an image of
a woman standing in from of some dark-colored (b/w film) fuselage, with
air-force markings.

Is there anyone that has seen this movie that recognizes that scene, as
well as the craft behind the woman?  It looked similar to the SR-71, but
only the cockpit and part of the fuselage were visible, so I couldn't say
for sure.

I'm curious because I thought the SR-71 was secret for quite a while, and
I'd be surprised if it somehow got into this film by accident.

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

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 07:35:21 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|The problem with the idea of Western aid saving the Russians is that any amount
|that is politically viable in the West is going to be far too small to have
|any effect; remember, even with all the troubles going on over there, the

Hey, we have no trouble giving israel, 3 Billion  even 4 billion a year
in direct subsidies.  We  Give japan 40-70 Billion/ year, only we call
that Trade Deficit.   Who says we can't give the russians a politically
viable aid package.  We just need to buy products from them.
And given the current 20:1 leverage on the dollar,  it's not a problem.
Even 2-4 Billion  will have spending power as 40-80 billion here.
and there economy is the size of frances.  Actually if we give them too
much aid, we'll super heat them  and give them inflation,  even beyond
what they have.

|Russian economy is still two or three hundred billion dollars.  Two or three
|billion dollars a year in aid (or commercial joint ventures) is going to be
|a drop in the bucket.
|

Actually most aid programs are not for then a small percentage of the GDP.
The only exception is Israel, and look where it's gotten them.
My take is that a modest 5 -10 billion dollar program of combined
product purchase  and direct targeted aid to key industries  mostly
Oil production  and Transportation.  Will provide massive returns on
investment.  If we agree to buy launch services for 2 billion/ year
and just give it away to US researchers,  we'll do a lot for them.

|The only kind of aid I see having any real effect on the situation over there
|is aid targeted at specific sectors of the economy that are in critically
|failing condition; food production and transportation, energy, housing, things

They produce lot's of food, it just doesn't make it to market.
They also produce lot's of energy, it's just poorly utilized.
Housing is not a vital problem.  People live on streets here.
Food riots are the biggest concern.



|like that, where the money has a direct effect on the people.  Giving money
|to Energia to build Szabo Space-Toasters likely won't have that effect.

But giving money to build energiya to hurl  large structures up for
lunar science  or mars exploration  would do a lot for us.
Zubrins Mars DIrect proposal requires a 40 ton launch vehicle.
I think energiya would nicely perform in that role.

pat

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 06:21:20 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

Are canadian exports of Radio-nucliedes, also controlled by US
rules.  Technology export  controls, that sort of thing?

Pat

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 11:43:26 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so bad?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.scuba

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Oivind Toien) writes:
|
|In a previous record dive (dry) at NUTEC, Bergen, Norway to about 500
|m they used a Heliox mixture most of the time except during the descent
|were the gas mixture contained some nitrogen. The idea was the the
|effect of N2 narcosis should reduce the effect of high pressure nerve
|syndrome.
|Several of the divers suffered serious injury. Although technology
|seems to develop infinitely, physiology sets certain limits...
|
>In a program on the Norwegian channel 2 yesterday it was said that 1
>of 7 divers are injured (per dive...) in dive operations in the North
>Sea occuring at more than 300 m.


My understanding is that Commercial diving  has some real problems
following the Navy Dive tables.  Even if  you rigorously follow them,
that multiple diving causes some form of Micro Nitrogen bubbles
in the nervous tissue.  Long term studies of the spinal tissues
of commercial divers shows large amounts of nerve damage.

There is some movement to require deep diving bells, where the divers
can live  underwater for extended periods and  undergo
slow decompression.

pat

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 11:38:26 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|>On 23 Mar 1993 15:25:37 -0500, Pat <[e-mail]> writes:
|
|>/PS.  Aviation is a fairly large segment of the US economy.  Larger
|>/then you think.   Dallas, Wichita, Seattle and St Louis make
|>/aircraft a substantial part of their business.

|Well, I'd agree with all but that last bit.  We don't do that many
|airplanes in Dallas, I don't think.  Now, if you want to go over by Ft
|Worth . . .
|

Well,  If one wants to get picky,  I was thinking of Arlington,
that's where LTV is doing fuselage  work for god knows who all.
Boeing,  McDac,  Lockheed....  I just wrapped it up under the
heading Dallas, cuz I doubt few people outside of texas have ever heard
of Arlington.   If i mentioned it,  most people would think of
Virginia.

WHo'se located in Fort Worth?

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 397
------------------------------