Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO437.TXT

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 05:04:19
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #437
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 19 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 437

Today's Topics:
                 *Angle of Attack*: have you read it?
                                Aurora
                      Breasts in zero-g (2 msgs)
                      Dyson Sphere's (again???)
                FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
                       Hubble's mirror (2 msgs)
                    Mars Simulation in Antarctica
                             Metric again
Minority Kids into Techies (was Re: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts)
                             NASA Coverup
   opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
                           SATELLITE PHOTO
                          Shuttle computers
                         Shuttle replacement
                         Space suit research?
              SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
                         UN Space/Moon Treaty

    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: 18 Nov 92 16:23:00 GMT
From: "ONEIL, PAUL GRAHAM" <[e-mail]>
Subject: *Angle of Attack*: have you read it?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.books

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

>Suddenly I have a desire to know everything I can about *Angle of
>Attack*, a new book by Mike Gray, the screen-writer who penned *The
>China Syndrome*.  I may have a chance to meet the author this week.

>The book is the story of Harrison Storms, the head of North American
>Aviation's space division during the development of the Apollo command
>module (NAA also developed one of the Saturn V stages, I think).
>Storms was canned in the wake of the Apollo fire investigation, much

>Is it worth buying?

If you grew up enjoying the biographies of Bill Bridgeman, Scott
Crossfield, and the Mercury astronauts in ``We Seven,'' this is probably
your book. If you built the models and lusted to fly them, but realized
limitations of eyesight, reflexes, and agility would stop you from going
all the way; so you engineered the models and built working pieces, this
is definitely your book. Based on the recommendation of a 30 year
NACA/NASA veteran now working for Lockheed, I bought it this past
weekend.  He said it was valuable, captured material not available in
Murray and Cox's book [now apparently out of print in both hardback and
trade paper], and was true to some of the people named in the book [he
wasn't one of them].

>Is there more to it than I have described?

It gives some background on North American in the WW2 area.  Some of the
early chapters deal with the X-15 and Storm's plans to make is an
orbital vehicle [very sketchy].  A fair bit of description is given to
winning the Apollo contract and what the behind the scenes maneuvering
was like by many of the interested parties.

>Does the author think Storms was a scapegoat for other peoples'
>mistakes?

There are many people who believe the above for a variety of reasons.
My first boss down here felt that Harrison Storms was the best
manager, engineer and technical leader he had worked with; and this
man had also worked with Kelly Johnson for a brief period.  The legend
among many of the old-timers working in SAIL, DDTS, MCC MER and what
used to be MPAD is that Storms was sacrificed to assuage the
politicos, press and the people to minimize disruption to the program.
I don't recall one of them voicing an opinion on whether Storms was
deeply at fault in this incident.

In the same vein, much of the feeling for Joe Shea who was the NASA
scapegoat holds also.  Some in the systems engineering community revere
him as a martyr.  Despite their many opposite characteristics, Mike Gray
treats Shea in as sympathetic fashion as he does Storms.  From the
descriptions of the congressional review process and damage control
maneuvers of NASA depicted in the book, it seems unlikely that justice
was served in either case. Indeed, Senator Mondale is depicted in the
most cynical, politically opportunistic light I have seen in print.
And the picture of Bobby Baker, industry lobbyists, venal civil servants
and the best politicians that money could buy deciding who will win
major contracts is almost enough to obscure any blame attached to the
systems engineers [Shea] and engineering managers [Storms] for
erroneous technical decisions on use of over-pressure pure oxygen,
velcro, chaffable wire bundles, and uncapped electrical outlets.

If you get a chance to meet the author, there might be some
fascinating questions on his approach to these stories.  I noticed
that he apparently did some work on Fred Hampton's killing.  How did
he attempt to dig the truth out on this.  Was he sympathetic to Fred
Hampton, the survivors and the Black Panthers or to the law
enforcement establishment?  Gray seems good at capturing the pulse of
the populace that is triggered by the media and then looking at those
same events with a different objective filter that puts situations where
truth is difficult into a better perspective.

Of course, the ``China Syndrome'' was good strong fictional story rooted
on details he learned in writing his book about Three Mile Island, the
sympathy shown to the Jack Lemmon character seems about right for the
level of portrayal of Harrison Storms life, works, personality and
achievements.

I imagine, getting the truth in context and writing about it 25 years
later would be more difficult for the story of Apollo 1 than either
Fred Hampton's death or the Three Mile Island incident.  Gray gives a
chronological list of interview dates and locations with his sources.
I was surprised that some names were missing and others I simply didn't
recognize.

Please let us know how the meeting went.

graham
--
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 16:26:59 GMT
From: "Bradford B. Behr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") writes:
>    Can anyone summarize the rumors and speculation
>about the "Aurora" black project ?  Perhaps some comments
>about the technologies that are involved, and what that
>would mean for the development of SSTO, DC-X, HL-20. etc. ?

As I understand it, Aurora is (are?) an entirely atmospheric vehicle,
a replacement for the retired SR-71 recon aircraft (aka Blackbird).
"Sightings" of the Aurora craft have been reported for a couple of
years now, and a recent posting on rec.aviation.military mentions
something looking not unlike the old XB-70 Valkyrie bomber prototypes,
with retractable canard foreplanes. There have also been reports of
some sort of fast "pulsejet" aircraft, which leaves a contrail looking
like a string of hotdogs as it "putt-putts" its way across the sky. I
recall reading some Aviation Week speculation about craft that are
propelled by fuel burning on the _outside_ of the fuselage, utilizing
hypersonic flow over a specially-shaped exterior to do the necessary
compression to make an external ramjet, and tying this in to the
Aurora sightings. There was also some thinking (guessing) that at
least one of the couple of different designs referred to as "Aurora"
might be unmanned (a super-souped-up RPV drone, in essence), since
that would dispense with all the hardware needed to keep a pilot
breathing.

As far as connections to SSTO and HL-20, it seems that Aurora is in an
entirely different flight regime (aero vs rocket), and that
technologies really wouldn't cross over, except for maybe
heat-resistant exteriors. There might be some NASP technology in the
Aurora project, but as the Aurora is a long-range recon aircraft, it
probably only uses ramjet technology (albeit vastly advanced) and not
any sort of hydrogen burning scramjet action that would be needed to
get to orbit. (Just speculation on my part.)

I'm no DoD aeroengineer, just an aircraft buff, so if anybody's got
any further info on Aurora, or corrections to my synopsis, do post!

Brad

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
     Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 19:59:31 GMT
From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Breasts in zero-g
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (MAGNUS OLSSON) writes:

>I know this may sound like a weird kind of question, but we were discussing
>a comment in an SciFi book about the effect of zero-gravity on a female
>characters breasts, and started wondering what really happens to womens
>breasts in space.  Do women astronauts need to wear bras, for example?

This is not my area but I will try and firmly grasp the subject on
your behalf.  This is a personal hypothesis:

A coworker once commented that he found it pleasing viewing the hair
of the late Judy Resnik, shown in the shuttle on the NASA select T.V.
In zero-g her hair appeared full of body, and he was attracted to it.

I suspect that the same applies with breasts.  Without gravity they
tend to seek their own level such that the plane that includes the
radial axis of each breast, as well as the darker compexioned exterior
frontal discs, rotates upward, away from the waistline, so as to align
themselves perpendicularly to the spine.  Without a gravitational tug,
their shape changes from conical to globular.  The use of a brazier is
still required, although the flight version differs from the
terrestrial standard in that instead of lifting the breasts upward it
pulls them downward, keeping them out of the face.

The astronaut performs special isometric exercises to maintain muscle
tone of the pectoral area.  However, when examined upon their return
to a 1g environment, the breasts may be found to sag slightly more
than they did when in pre-flight condition.  This problem should
correct itself in time.

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 22:18:45 GMT
From: Josh Diamond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breasts in zero-g
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <roelle.722116771@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

[intro to stuff about breasts in zero-G eliminated...]

                                          The use of a brazier is
   still required...                       ^^^^^^^
                                  OUCH!!!

I presume that you mean _brassiere_ (the women's undergarment
supporting the breasts) rather than _brazier_ (a basket-like stand
holding burning coals)!



Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          [e-mail]
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:14:19 -0500
From: Maulik Harish Shah <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson Sphere's (again???)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello,
    This had probably been discussed (I caught the tail end of a Dyson
Sphere thread in the backposts). But:
    How would you detect a dyson sphere? A true dyson sphere (as far as I
know) would totally enclose the sphere. And, logically, the Material
that  you would have to make the dyson sphere out of would have to have
an enormous tensile strength. Wouldn't such a material block most
radiation (visible, or otherwise)?
Hit me if this is a stupid question or if this has been discussed before.

                -Mo


********************************************************

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.
                              -Somebody I know

********************************************************

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 15:15:25 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
        [vague generalities removed]
        [folklore removed]
        [political dogma removed]
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC

(Large yaaaawwwwwnnnnnn)

Areas where the verdict is not yet in (e.g. cold fusion) are still being
investigated.  Funding comes from organizations that see sufficient
potential.

The Laws of Thermodynamics have stood the test of time well, and have
revealed **MANY** misconceptions, errors, and outright frauds, particularly
in free energy or perpetual motion schemes.

Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  If you postulate
tapping some latent energy source, be prepared to quantize to support
your claims, and to explain the impact of the reduction of that source
as well (or how it gets renewed).

Why must you keep posting this, when obviously no one is willing to
leap upon your (rather shaky) bandwagon?

Flame me if you want, I can delete mail in a keystroke.


--
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:43:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mario Wolczko) writes:
>Any idea why an end-to-end test would have been more susceptible to
>gravitational problems than the null corrector test?  Couldn't both be
>performed with the primary flat on its back?  And why are there
>more risks of surface contamination?

Adding tests means moving the mirrors around and doing work in their
vicinity, which automatically increases the risk of contamination.
The problem there isn't the nature of the test, but simply the fact that
it's yet more fiddling with the mirrors, when you would really like to
handle them as little as possible between manufacturing and launch.

I would guess that the null-corrector tests were done with the mirror
flat on its back; it would seem the obvious approach.  The problem with
gravitational distortion -- I would think -- is simply that it requires
doing the test in a vertical orientation, which considerably complicates
the test facility (if for no other reason, because you need a vertical
shaft of considerable height to mount everything in).  That is, it's not
something you could expect the P-E optics shop to be able to rig up with
equipment on hand; it might even need a special building (although there
are reports that the USAF already has one).
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:29:48 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror

-From: [e-mail] (Mario Wolczko)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
-Date: 17 Nov 92 12:18:39 GMT
-Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
-> The *only* test that would have detected the error [an end-to-end test]
-> [would have been difficult due to problems]
-> like gravitational distortion of the primary
-I've seen this mentioned a few times, and it has me confused.
-Any idea why an end-to-end test would have been more susceptible to
-gravitational problems than the null corrector test?  Couldn't both be
-performed with the primary flat on its back?

The HST primary mirror had to be ground and tested lying flat on a special
actively-controlled support bed to compensate for gravitational sag. I *think*
the secondary mirror did too. Testing the two mirrors together, I suppose
they could have supported the primary in this way, but unless they invented
a whole new support structure just for the test, the secondary would have
sagged. In a fully integrated test (mirrors installed in truss, instruments
installed), neither mirror would have been properly supported, and the truss
itself would tend to sag. In retrospect, an error as large as the one in the
primary could still have been detected, but the test would come nowhere near
determining whether the optics would meet the specs in microgravity.

-And why are there more risks of surface contamination?

I don't know, but I suspect the military telescope testbed that was
available did not meet the "clean room" requirements. (Evidently the big
spy telesopes don't require as precise a test, and don't need to see the
same UV wavelengths as HST.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Newsgroups: sci.space

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pluto.physics.uiowa.edu
Organization: The University of Iowa
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:11:22 GMT
Lines: 16
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Pat)
>Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:50:46 GMT
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>>        At one point I believe that the US was operating a small nuclear
>>reactor as a source of power and heat in one of their Antarctic bases.  Does
>>anyone know the details - this would be highly relevant to moon and or mars
>>bases (which of course would have to however have alternate methods of
>>rejecting heat).
>
>THey probably ran SNAP-7 nuclear reactors down in the polar areas.
>it was there small transportable power rac for science stations, etc....
>i seem to recall they were used in the artic as well.
>look in some historys of nuclear power to be sure.
Antarctica is now a nuclear free zone and the reactors were removed.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:57:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metric again
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C R Francis) writes:

>In article <sturges-091192110833@158.185.20.239>,
>[e-mail] (Jim Sturges) says:
>>
>>From the society for the preservation of purity in language.....
>>
>>ALL measuring systems are "metric." What we're talking about is the
>>difference between SI and English?
>>

>Strangely enough the system you call English is not used in England.  The
>system slowly being phased out in the UK is called Imperial, and is slightly
>different from the US 'English' system (eg some units of volume have the same
>name but different size).

We know that.  Of course, the language we call English isn't really
the one that is spoken in England, either.  The same sorts of 'subtle'
differences have crept in as exist in the two measurement systems.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 15:38:36 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minority Kids into Techies (was Re: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Why would ANYONE want to REDUCE the number of students (white or otherwise)
studying to enter science and technology fields???  We have few enough
students graduating with even minimal competence in mathematics and
the physical sciences.

I encourage - no, make that CHALLENGE - as many humans (no, I'm no xenophobe
either, but until we have some ET applicants...) as possible to try the
limits of the University of their choice.  If you can't come up with
questions your professors cannot answer, you're not trying hard enough.
When you find an interesting question, explore it, try to answer it.
Even if you do not succeed, you will win, and it's extermely likely
that your explorations will find something that no one else has discovered.
It may not open up gravitic technology or lead to pocket fusion batteries,
but it will be a new frontier.

The point of this?  Scientists and engineers become a commodity when
they innovate.  This creates opportunities.  There is always a market
for innovation, and its raw materials are knowledge, training, and
imagination.  Knowledge is the result of previous innovation, recorded
and passed on.  Training results from serious study, rigorous application
of theory, experimentation, and time.  Imagination varies from one
individual to another.  Maybe it can be taught, certainly it can be
nurtured, but IMO it cannot spring into being from nothing.

I don't really think minority status should ever enter into it.

--
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:38:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Chester) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:
>]In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>]>    I  will  continue , however to point out alternative theories to account
>]>   for various facts  of  nature.  Theories  are  not  science,  but  merely
>]>   suggestions  of  possible  explanations  for  observed  phenomena  .   An
>]>   alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent  to
>]>   be as viable as relativity , or any other theory.

At least learn what 'theory' means when used in the context of
science.  First, what you apparently think of as a 'theory' is
actually generally referred to as a 'hypothesis'.  It doesn't become a
'theory' until it is somewhat more solidly based and compared to
observed phenomenon than mere mathematical speculation.

>]
>]No, what you have is necessary, but not sufficient.  It must also be
>]testable and make some predictions about the universe to be as viable as
>]relativity (General or Special). (This is true to first order.  I am
>]aware that there is some discussion in philosophy of science about
>]falsifiability, as well as other nits.)

This is pretty much REQUIRED for a scientific 'theory' -- it must
exhibit sufficient predictive power to be falsifiable.  In other
words, it must predict things that we can go look at that we don't
know the answers to yet, so that we can then go and see if the things
that it predicts are true.

>It also helps to be a bit diplomatic snarfy. Saying NASA, you are BUSTED is
>not the way to get anybody to listen to you. Indeed, you appear to be both
>an arrogant ass and a raving loon when you use such phrases. It's not kissing
>up to NASA when you avoid what you originally posted, snarfy; it's called
>being polite. Now, if McElwaine would only follow that advice.

I didn't see the original post (I unfortunately don't read this
newsgroup as often as I used to), but from this I would say that what
was proposed was the standard 'conspiracy theory' sort of thing,
coupled with the usual misunderstanding of just how rigorous the proof
of something must be before it even qualifies as a 'theory'.

See what happens when you don't keep up?  You miss things like this
one.  (another Velikovsky fan?)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:24:33 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Remember Apollo 13, the failure modes for these things includes
>>BOOM! Also don't forget the electrolyzer, tankage, and pumps.
>
>I thought the Apollo 13 failure was due to overheating a dewar,
>something not proposed for this house project.

Yes, it was an oxygen tank explosion. The tankage was primarily for
the fuel cell. Allis Chalmers had several fuel cell explosions during
their development of the cells, however, and it was initially thought
that it had happened again.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:34:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: SATELLITE PHOTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IEGS000) writes:
>COULD SOMEONE HELP ME: SUPPOSE A HURRICANE JUST BLEW IN! WHERE CAN I
>FIND A SATELLITE PHOTOS OF IT'S PROGRESS?

Try the Weather Channel, or if you don't have cable, your local broadcast
TV station's weathercast.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:15:16 GMT
From: Rob Andrews <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

    The shuttle computers and software systems were discussed in an issue
of the Communications of the ACM (Assoc of Computing Machinery) a few years
ago.  I saw it around my desk a few days ago, when I find it again, I'll
post the relevent reference.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:32:36 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!
>
>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.
>
>How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell. It has cost
the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
but the US Government isn't a profit making institution. It considers
those costs fully sunk. At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,
the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
at bargain rates per fractional payload.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:33:52 GMT
From: david michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit research?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>I believe the astronauts normally moved between the Command Module and the
>Lunar Module via a pressurized docking adapter. However, while two of the
>astronauts were on the moon, a camera mounted on the Service Module was
>busy taking beautiful stereo aerial photos of the lunar surface. When the
>astronauts came back from the moon, one of them had to do an EVA to
>retrieve the film. This is depicted in the NASA Select video of Apollo 16
>(a great video, if you ever have a chance to see it).
>
>I'm not sure whether this was done before or after unsealing the Lunar Module -
>Command Module adapter - I would guess before, so the Command Module would
>not have to be depressurized.

The film cassettes were retrieved during the trans-earth coast -- long after
the LM ascent stage had been jettisoned.

The EVAs were conducted through the main CM hatch by the CM pilot.

>
>Question: was the Lunar Module normally pressurized before takeoff? And
>after the film EVA, was it pressurized again before unsealing the docking
>adapter?

The LM was certainly not pumped down to vacuum before liftoff :-)  I suspect
that some sort of pressure equalization valve was used to reduce the pressure
from 15 to 5 psi during ascent as was done in the CM.  But I don't recall
reading anything about that before...

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:08:14 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>There are two things which need to be validated. First is the aerodynamics of
>the 'flip maneuver' they use on re-entry. The second thing is to verify
>their models and simulations on tasks needed for rapid operations (can the
>engines be serviced as fast as they think, ect).

The second goal is vastly more important than the first. If the flip
manuever proves problematical, the next vehicle could be redesigned
to use a more conventional base-first reentry (like Apollo).  If the
maintenance goals can't be achieved, however, it would undermine the
entire justification for the project.


>>Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do?

>I hope so. We are working hard on that (again, let me know if you want
>to help). We have shown a few key people that there is support for this.

Nothing that doesn't have "ecological disaster" in its title has
the ability to fascinate Al Gore.  However, Milton Freidman used
to tell a story about geese and politicians.  If you watch a flock
of geese, flying in "V" formation behind the leader, everyone once
in a while you will see them start to head in the wrong direction.
The other geese, realizing something's wrong, turn and continue in
the correct direction.  Finally the "leader" turns his head, realizes
no one is following him, and starts to flap like mad to get in front
of everybody else again.  Politicians operate much the same way.

The critical test, I think, is public opinion.  If the American
people get really excited about this, Clinton and Gore will quickly
move into the "I said it was a good idea all along" camp.  That will
happen around the time of the first test launch, if it happens at all.
When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
news.  (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 15:20:37 GMT
From: Charles Frank Radley <[e-mail]>
Subject: UN Space/Moon Treaty
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lauren Podolak) writes:


>Pretty close and it was never signed by the US......

>James
>___
The USA DID sign the UN Moon Treaty.
However, the Senate never ratified the treaty, so it does not
have the force oif law in the USA

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 437
------------------------------