Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no692.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 12KB

Date: Mon,  7 Jun 93 05:08:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #692
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  7 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 692

Today's Topics:
                              DC-1 costs
                   John Young and "The Right Stuff"
NASA AMES people: please forward this to Bob Arnold at the SETI Inst.
                           T-38's nickname

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:09:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (KERR, ROBERT CRAIG) writes:
>Assuming Joe Blo corp can buy a DC-1 if and when it becomes operational,
>what would it cost?

A rough guess would be $250M to $350M.

>I have heard it compared to an airliner repeatedly,
>how accurate is this?

Well, the flight software for the DC-X was lifted right off the MD-11
airliner. In a sense, much of the software for DC-X 'thinks' its a
MD-11.

>Using numbers this hypothetical corporation would
>be faced with instead of the numbers that have been used to compare it to
>the shuttle, what would the cost per pound be?

See my previous post. A fleet of four vehicles, each flying 50 times
a year wold cost roughly $450/pound. That would be the same if the
fleet where government or privately owned or any mixture of the two.

This cost includes amortization of all development costs and interest.

>My point is, how likely is it to be used for commercial purposes since Uncle
>Sam is paying for R&D?

No reason it can't be. There is a civilian HMMV and a military DC-10 so
why not a civilian DC?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 17:51:59 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Young and "The Right Stuff"
Newsgroups: sci.space

This phrase was published in the June/July
issue of the Air and Space magazine, and was
attributed to John Young it reads:

"All the stuff I know, would make "The Right
Stuff" look like a Sunday school picnic."

I am wondering if John Young has ever
published a book about his experiences
as astronaut if so, I would certainly
like to read it!

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:24:23 GMT
From: James Salsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA AMES people: please forward this to Bob Arnold at the SETI Inst.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

I promised Bob Arnold, a research assistant in public affairs at the
SETI Institute that I would get him these references and notes, but I
understand that he has no e-mail address, so could you at NASA Ames
that are near his office (Moffett Field mail stop SI:244-11/Arnold)
please print this out and pass it to him?  Thanks; please let me know.

:James

-----

"Is Bacteriophage \phi X174 DNA a Message from an Extraterrestrial
Intelligence?" Hiromitsu Yokoo and Tairo Oshima, _Icarus_ vol. 38,
pp. 148-153 (1979.)

"SV40 DNA---A Message from \epsilon ERI?" Hiroshi Nakamura,
_Acta_Astronautica_, vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 573-578 (1986.)

-----

This information is from a technical report written by A. V. Arkhipov
of the Akademiya Nauk URSR Kharkov Institute of Radio-Physics and
Electronics in the Ukrane.  The Arkhipov article is available from
NTIS under the report number INIS-SU-25/A.  It was published in 1986,
but has not yet been translated by any of the American SETI labs that
I have contacted.

According to the tranlation of the abstract, there are four stars
within 20 parsecs that are "solar-type" and also are in the same
direction as "continous isotropic radioemmision" sources in the
hundred to thousand megahertz range.  The probability of such
emmissions being accidental was declared to be 2x10^-4.

This information below was gleaned from the text, with the help of
several European star catalogs and a technical Russian-English
dictionary from the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering and
Science Library, the SIMBAD database, courtesy S.A.O./Harvard and a
friend from Pittsburgh fluent in Russian (Thanks, Inna!)

These are the four stars that Arkhipov says are the probable
locations of extraterrestrial civilazations:

Catalog   Right  (1950)  Dec-  Visual   Absolute  Spectral  Distance  Radial
Number    Ascention  lination      Magnitude      Type      (light    Velocity
========  =========  ========  ======   ========  ========  =years)=  =(km/s)=

HD 21899   3h28m27s  -41d 32'   6.11      6.60      F6V       39.3      +16.2
or HR 1076 or GC 4199   (In southern Eridanus, near the 4th mag. y Eridani)

HD100623  11h32m03s  -32d 34'   6.06      6.00      dK1V      33.1      -23
or HR 4458 or GC 15873 or DM-32 8179 (In middle Hydra near Zeta Hydrae)

HD187691  19h32m03s  +10d 17'   5.16      3.75      dF8V      68.0       -1
or Omicron Aquillae or CG 27480 or GL 768.1A or 54 Aql (Just north of Altair)

HD187923  19h49m43s  +11d 30'   6.15      3.1       G0V      135.9      -17
or HR 7569 or GC 27510 (Just about twice as far north of Altair)

Here are the frequencies at which these stars were said to emit
continous isotropic and/or periodic radioemmissions:

Star        Signal (MHz)   Current (see note)
=========   ============   ==================
HD 21899       408           1.64 +or- 0.17
              2700           0.19 +or- 0.03

HD 100623      408           0.86 +or- 0.05
              1415           0.13 +or- 0.03  (In the Waterhole Band)
              2700           0.21 +or- 0.02

HD 187691      178           2.4  +or- 0.5
               408           0.85 +or- 0.05

HD 187923      178           2.4  +or- 0.5
               408           2.02 +or- 0.77
              1420           2.8  +or- 1.0  (In the Waterhole Band)
              3200          <0.5

Note: I am not sure what units "current" is being expressed in.
Neither the Russian-English dictionary that I consulted or my
Russian-speaking friend could help me figure out the discussion of
this unit, which apparently included thermodynamics as well as
electromagnetic technicalities.  The Cyrilic symbol used for this
unit looks like <backward-R><small-capital-H>.

The waterhole band is that area of the radiofrequency
sprectrum between the primary emission lines of H and OH,
which many scientists think would be indicative of water,
and therby life, and therefore an ideal place for
interstellar communications.  On a related note, I think
that all of Arkhipov's stars are emitting at 408 MHz is
remarkable.  Maybe he only had a few settings on his tuner.

--
:James Salsman
::Bovik Research

Dear Tipper, please help start Divorce Education programs for parents of minors

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 17:55:00 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: T-38's nickname
Newsgroups: sci.space

I read in the book "The All-American Boys" by
ex-astronaut Walter Cunningham, that, for being
such a sexy aircraft, the T-38 was nicknamed
"The Golden Leg Spreader". I am wondering if
the people at Houston, or anywhere else, could
confirm this since I saw it only in
Cunningham's book.

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


Received: from VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU by isu.isunet.edu (5.64/A/UX-2.01)
    id AA01763; Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:29:14 EDT
Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa13510; 6 Jun 93 14:23:21 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:64168
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1992 NASA Authorization Budget- shuttle
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:03:28 GMT
Lines: 72
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>You are assuming that the NASA budget is fixed in stone.  It is not
>necessarily true that no more money can be appropriated to fund development
>of a new vehicle

Barring a MAJOR change in public attitudes, the NASA budget IS fixed for
the foorseeable future. NASA simply doens't have the political clout to
get more. In fact, support for expensive and unproductive programs like
Shuttle and Station will actually cost support down the road.

People opposed to manned space point to these programs as wasteful and
proof that people in space will never be affordable. When supporters come
to the defense of these programs, all you do is prove them right.

>canning the Shuttle will [not] automatically free up money for another project.

Granted but it is far more likely that we could get the money than not. We
woldn't get all of it, of course, but we don't need all of it. Just as
Shuttle was a bone tossed to NASA after Apollo, SSTO could be a bone
tossed to NASA after Shuttle. Having NASA embrase streamlined procurement,
simpler requirements, and other reforms would make it more likely.

But major increases for NASA just ain't going to happen. Pick any analyst
you like, they'll agree with me.

>Depends on what you mean by 'defend'.  Sure, a Ken-style defense of
>the Shuttle is not a good thing, but saying "Yes, the Shuttle is expensive
>but we know that we can do better, and we'd like to keep it flying until
>we get this lower-cost (whip out the plans here) replacement going" may be
>quite constructive.

And the answer is: "see, I told you, they know it's expensive and doesn't
work well, but they STILL back it because it's pork for their special
interest!". Saying 'we know it's too expensive but let's fly it anyway'
only plays into their hands.

>Fortunately, space scientists don't control the budget.

no, but they are considered the space experts by many in Congress.

>Nobody said we need a new Shuttle costing tens of billions, and as for the
>Russians, unless we see a fairly steady upward trend in their economic
>situation starting in the next couple of years, nobody in their right mind
>is going to entrust the care and feeding of our space station to a nation
>that may well be disintegrating.

Sorry, but that's the trend.

>Further, I doubt anyone in their right
>mind is simply going to abandon the manned space field to the Russians;
>there are factors other than strictly economic at work here.

Get with the program guy! The cold war is over. That stuff doesn't work
any more.

>(This is interesting...I don't have the old posts, but I would have sworn
>that you denied wanting to can the shuttle before the replacement was in
>place in the past.  Am I going senile?)

No, I have changed my mind in recent weeks. Now, I don't think it is
politically possible at this time so I'm not going to act on it, but for
the reasons I have stated above, flying Shuttle only helps our enemies and
hurts us over the long run.

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 692
------------------------------