Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO584.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:00:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #584
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 23 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 584

Today's Topics:
     7-for-1 study (was Re: Justification for the Space Program)
                           Aurora (2 msgs)
                          Biosphere 2 update
                      Breeder reactors (2 msgs)
                     Earthquake Filmed from Space
                          I need some help!
             Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs)
                            LEI financing
                              Mnemonics
                           MOL (and Almaz)
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (3 msgs)
         Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
    Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran?

    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: 22 Dec 92 04:30:37 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: 7-for-1 study (was Re: Justification for the Space Program)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Coleman) writes:
>
>>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in
>>> space spin offs.
>>
> If this is the study I am thinking of, it used the methodology of
> simply assuming that spending by NASA on R&D was as productive as
> private industrial R&D.  No attempt was made to actually identify the
> spinoffs, or judge NASA's contribution to them.  The more recent
> German study showing that space R&D is less effective at creating
> spinoffs than private R&D (as judged by patent citations) would tend
> to discredit this.
>
> I don't recall who did the study, but it got mentioned in this
> newsgroup some years ago...  anyone remember?

The recent "seven-dollar" study (about 4 years old now) was done by
Chapman and Associates  under contract to NASA.  Goldin cited it in
his talk at the Indianapolis town meeting.  I have a copy somewhere
among my effects, but I haven't read it.  :-(

A summary of the German study *was* posted to sci.space in the past
couple of months.  Perhaps some enthusiastic archive jockey can
retrieve it.

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:51:55 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora

In answer to John Roberts (Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST):

>I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's
>nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different
>connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"?

Yes, "chasser" means "to hunt", and it is very agressive. What we
call an "avion de chasse" is what you call a "fighter". According
to the dictionary, "to chase" seems indeed a little less agressive,
and may be translated by "chasser" but also by "poursuivre" (= "to
pursue"), so there is some ambiguity.
However, a F-16 is a fighter, and I still find a little disturbing
that US fighters chase US "deep black" planes.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 15:47:36 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 22 Dec 92 14:54:42 GMT, [e-mail] said:

JP> In answer to John Roberts (Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST):

>I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's
>nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different
>connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"?

JP> Yes, "chasser" means "to hunt", and it is very agressive. What we
JP> call an "avion de chasse" is what you call a "fighter". According
JP> to the dictionary, "to chase" seems indeed a little less agressive,
JP> and may be translated by "chasser" but also by "poursuivre" (= "to
JP> pursue"), so there is some ambiguity.
JP> However, a F-16 is a fighter, and I still find a little disturbing
JP> that US fighters chase US "deep black" planes.

Traditionally, we have always chased high, fast aircraft with
high-performance aircraft (fighters).  Here at Dryden, we've used
F-104s, T-38s, F-18s, F-100s, T-33s, and other high-performance
aircraft.

High-performance aircraft have the best flight envelope to stay with
the test plane if it's got any kind of envelope at all.  Plus, they're
mature technology, so your chase won't break and cancel the mission.
(Well, not often--we had a problem yesterday with the second flight of
the HARV, when the chase F-18 had a problem on the ramp and the HARV
had to hold until they got the chase fixed, but it only took twenty
minutes or so.)

After all, the French chased Concorde with Mirages.

I don't understand why you find this "disturbing".  The chase planes
don't carry missiles or anything; they just fly safety chase.  They're
not there to shoot down the test airplane or launch missiles at
traffic.  They're just there if there's a problem.  They take the
radio calls, watch the position in the restricted area, look for
traffic, and keep an eye on the test plane for things like leaks.  We
had a USAF chase pilot in an F-4 catch a hydraulic leak in the
AFTI/F-111 very early.  The AFTI/F-111 RTBed immediately and ran out
of hydraulic pressure on the taxiway; we may well have lost the test
aircraft if chase hadn't noticed the thin stream of fluid\ coming off
the plane.

Perhaps you're confused by the fact that high-performance aircraft are
designated as fighters?  Many of these aircraft are dedicated to the
chase role; the USAF's T-38 pacers (used for airspeed and altitude
calibrations) are a good example.

What were you planning on chasing a supersonic/hypersonic plane with?
A Cessna 172?  We chased our hypersonic airplane, the X-15, with
F-104s.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:12 GMT
From: Nathaniel Polish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere 2 update
Newsgroups: sci.space

I realize that there has been much debate concerning the seriousness of the
science of Biosphere 2.  However the problems posed are still fascinating.
If indeed this is to be viewed as a prototype space colony then I have a
problem with the review just posted from a crewmember.

There was much made of the wide variation in sunlight causing variation of
CO2 uptake by plants.  Further we have all seen discussions of the somewhat
uncomfortable drop in O2 level.  I would presume that any space colony would
have a reasonably abundant source of electric power (nuke or solor collectors).
This renders the issue of variable sunlight level moot as light is one thing
that we can easily create.  Also, one would not expect the sunlight levels
in Tuscon to be available on other planets.  So the real question is: to what
extent are the questions asked and circumstances created intended as a space
colony prototype?

Obviously, a Biosphere 2 crewmember would be the ideal respondant.

Thanks

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:29:34 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> One concern I've heard concerning at least some of the breeder cycles is that
> the fuel produced is more easily converted to bomb-grade material than is the
> U238-U235 mix traditionally used in commercial reactors. At the moment, it's
> difficult to guarantee that nobody can steal or divert a sufficient quantity
> of such a material (if it's widely used) to cause trouble. I believe I've
> heard proposals such as deliberately contaminating the fuel with high-level
> waste to make it too dangerous for thieves to handle. Do you have any more
> information on this aspect? And are there designs where the breeder itself
> consumes the fuel it generates?

(I've redirected followups to sci.energy.)

Let me preface this by observing that in a world where countries are
getting richer and more productive, the only long term way to keep
countries from making bombs is to have them not want to make bombs.
This is true even if our energy sources are non-nuclear.  Nuclear
terrorism, I think, is overrated; chemical terrorism is much easier,
after all, and as deadly, but has not yet occured.

There are nuclear fuel cycles that make the fuel less easily diverted
(although none is completely safe.)  The pyrometallurgical process for
reprocessing spent fuel developed at ANL leaves the reprocessed
actinides contaminated with sufficient high level waste to make
diverting them difficult.  This process is pretty simple (just 3 or 4
basic steps) and could be done on-site.

Thorium-based cycles would make U-233.  This could be spiked
with U-232, which would make the fuel a fairly strong gamma emitter.
This would make its diversion difficult and easily detectable.

Since this discussion was in the context of space resources, do
remember that to make a significant impact on terrestrial resource
demands, space industry would involve the manipulation of billions of
tons of material per year.  A 60,000 ton object dropped on the earth
hits with a yield of at least a megaton.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 16:07:16 GMT
From: Jim Mann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Roberts) writes:
> How much does uranium sufficiently enriched for use in commercial
reactors
> cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium cost?)

I'd think it should be free to anyone wanting to haul it away
(though the governement probably doesn't treat it that
way).  If you drive by any of the three government gaseous
diffusion plants, you'll see large cylinder after large cylinder of
depleted uranium piled up.  Most of this stuff is just a storage
problem for the plants. You'd think that if someone was actually
going to use it to generate electricity, they'd be willing to
just give it away.



--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:50:07 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earthquake Filmed from Space
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew L. Alden) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>:      After precisely lining up enlarged portions of the images on
>: a computer display, Crippen flickered between the two and
>: observed the differing ground motions across each of the faults.
>: He repeated this process with other parts of the images taken of
>: several different sites along the faults, and in some cases, he
>: observed newly formed cracks in the fault zones.
>
>I watched his display both at the press conference and later downstairs,
>and it was quite striking.  The SPOT images are 10 m per pixel, the best
>unclassified images you can get, yet even so, movements that were
>measured on the ground at a meter or so were clearly visible.  This is
>yet another argument for declassifying space photos made by military
>satellites, which are of as good quality looking down as the Hubble
>Space Telescope's are looking up.
>
>The flicker technique is used by astronomers to detect moving objects
>against the backdrop of the fixed stars.  The beauty of Crippen's work
>is that he could get nearly the same precision using images with less
>precise controls--a satellite in orbits a year apart over the same place
>on the ground.
>
>His work will pay off in similar situations where there is poor ground
>control, like central Asia.

How often is there going to be a quake with multi-meter offsets in the
desert?

Perhaps this techniques may help measure slower, aseismic deformation.
Many miles from the fault the tectonic plates are moving a couple inches
a year while the fault itself is locked in some places.  Perhaps the photo
technique will show the deformation pattern of a decade or so.

Radar inferometry has been used to measure ground motions for a few years.
Radar is not as sensitive to weather as light.  It has seen the spring time
swelling of agricultural fields in central California and the changes in
the size of Mt. Etna.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:17:07 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: I need some help!

Hi guys!
Sorry to disturb you, but i have a problem.
I would like to know the "adress" of the Technical University of Aachen.
I write to you because the person i want to find works on space research.
Please send the answer to my personnal "adress"([e-mail]) because i
 don't often read this digest.
Thank's for all and i wish for all of you a merry x'mas and a happy new year!
               Nagy Balazs(dave)    :-)

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 14:31:59 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes...
>
> >of technologies as justifications for the program. A serious considered look
> >at the problems of pollution, population, and wealth generation from a
> >systems perspective clearly show the advantage of increasing the resource
> >base upon which mankind must draw for survival and prosperity.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.  This is all vacuous mouthings.  Please present
>*specific* things which we can judge.
>
> > must press forward without Von Braun. Your arguments within the narrow
> > context of your statements may by true. What you are forgetting is
> > that there is much more to this world than your perspective and your
> > view.
>
>I'm willing to be convinced by facts.  Just what convinced you, if
>not facts?
>
    Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts.  We'd
still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and
tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry.  Humans seem
to need to expand to keep a society vibrant.  We're starting to run
out of physical and psychic room to expand on Earth.  Now, one could
either make more room here (nuking back into the Middle Ages was the
preferred technique up until recently) or look for more room
elsewhere.  Frontiersmen have never been a large fraction of the
population, but I submit that they have an impact on society out of
proportion with their number.  So, no numbers, no proof, just another
opinion why we as a whole should fund the fortunate few who get to go
out and jump off the "edge".

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:02:12 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> One part of your discussion disturbs me.  Money can be accumulated, and
> horded, and stolen.  However, money must be MADE first.  I'm not a
...
> As to what this has to do with the justification of space, I would say that
> opportunities to MAKE money are abundant in space if the technology and
> resources are put to good use.  This, in turn, increases the cumulative
> wealth of the planet.


Yes, that's right.  The problem is that when space is actually
compared with more mundane ways of creating wealth on earth, it
doesn't look all that good.  Sure, there are some niches, like
communications (soon to face strong competition from fiber optics) and
position location.  But schemes for energy or material mined in space
are just too expensive, speculative, poorly justified and long term
for an investor to take seriously.

More generally, raw materials costs are a rather small and shrinking
fraction of GNP.  Focusing on them is to ignore the real driver of
competitive advantage, productivity.  We don't make better and cheaper
cars or computers by cramming more steel and coal into the factory; we
do it by being smarter in how we design and manufacture them.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:02:34 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>    Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts.  We'd
>still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and
>tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry.  Humans seem
>to need to expand to keep a society vibrant.  We're starting to run
>out of physical and psychic room to expand on Earth.  Now, one could
>either make more room here (nuking back into the Middle Ages was the
>preferred technique up until recently) or look for more room
>elsewhere.

>Frontiersmen have never been a large fraction of the
>population, but I submit that they have an impact on society out of
>proportion with their number.  So, no numbers, no proof, just another
>opinion why we as a whole should fund the fortunate few who get to go
>out and jump off the "edge".

Uh, Brad, this is all well and good, but Wingo is running around saying space
will be the savior of all mankind and civilization as we know it.

He's also doing some Sagan-esque doomsaying which works nice to sell Carl
billions and billions of books, but does little in the way of providing actual,
quantifyable (key word) ways of demonstrating the planet is going to s**t and
SPACE, the FINAL FRONTIER is the only way to save it.

When you cut past all the rhetorical garbage, a series of Malthusian doomsayers
have continued to set a deadline on when humankind and the planet are going to
break down, and every friggin' 20 years they have to go back, rewrite their
models and move the goalposts (all the while, collecting plenty of money as
they continue to drive their internal combustion engine cars, wear synthetic
fibers, and find new ways to get onto TV).

We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
which Dennis insists IS necessary.

Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it.

We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
off the planet.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 08:38:08 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: LEI financing
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I read the information that LEI has posted at ames.  Very interesting
stuff.  It's a worthwhile idea and should be supported.
    However, I have a problem with funding by donation.  I would be willing
to donate ~$100.  But, if I had a reasonable expectation of getting my money
back, I would be willing to invest several $1000.  I wouldn't be greedy about
it either.  I would be satisfied to get the principle back at the end of the
mission.  Call it a 3-4 year no interest loan.
    I suspect that there would be many other space enthusiasts who would
be willing to 'loan' sizable pieces of change on this basis.
    Of course, I realize that making a mission like this even a break-even
proposition is not easy.  How much thought has gone into marketing the resource
map that will be produced?  Could you talk NASA into buying the whole thing for
,say, $20M ?  (I recall a proposed bill called something like "Lunar Resources
Information Purchasing Act" by which the US government would require NASA to
purchase the first available lunar resource map.  What happened to it?  Did it
die, or is there still a chance of passing it?)
    How about copyrighting the map and selling copies to universities,
governments etc. for $500.  (Hmmmm... $16,000,000/$500 = 32,000.  Well, maybe.)
Or even a student rate of $50 ;-)
    How about selling exclusive information from small areas to
'prospectors'?  (Yeah, you'd need pretty far-sighted prospectors.)
    The problem is the fundamental obstacle to getting all of us
out there, where we belong: not launch costs, or new technology, but
making it *pay*  Until it does, we're stuck here.

_______________________________________________________________________________
|                   .sig?  I don't need no stinking .sig!                     |
|                           [e-mail]                                |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 14:39:47 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mnemonics
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,sci.space

bill nelson ([e-mail]) wrote:
> [e-mail] (JKF) writes:
> : In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill nelson) writes:
>
> : >: or near miss in about 4 billion years. Working backwards they should also
> : >: have collided about 2 billion years ago (c. 1/2 the estimated age of the
> : >: solar system). Some people speculate that Pluto is an asteroid that was
> : >: captured by Neptune at this time.
> : >
> : >Yeah - some people do make such a speculation. The same ones who ignore the
> : >fact that Pluto has a moon. Also, the same people ignore the fact that none
> : >of the asteroids travel anywhere close to that far out. They are pretty much
> : >confined between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars.
> :
> : Sorry, Bill, but there are many planetoids and asteroids that orbit beyond
> : the orbit of Jupiter.  One such is a minor planet called Chiron.  There
> : are quite a few others as well.
>
> Note that I said "pretty much".
>
> There certainly are some that travel outside the orbit of Jupiter - as well
> as inside the orbit of the Earth. However, I know of none that travel outside
> the orbit of Saturn, much less any of the planets further out.
>
> Bill

Well, stay tuned.  Object 1992QB1 is reckoned to be a good candidate for a
distant (40-50 A.U.) minor planet and may be the first of many discovered at
that distance.


--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: 22 Dec 1992 15:09:48 GMT
From: "Michael K. Heney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOL (and Almaz)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>
>A mockup station (really just empty Titan tankage somewhat similar in
>size to a real station) and the first test capsule (which I believe
>was the refitted Gemini 2 capsule (with the new hatch in the heatshield)
>were launched around 1970.

I *think* it was actually the Gemini 3 capsule that was used for this.
I remember hearing it touted as "the first reuse of a manned spacecraft"
or something to that effect.  Of course, I was only about 12 at the time ...
--
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
[e-mail]   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 16:11:11 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>>space stations

>without shuttle, you might not have ONE Freedom space station.

Nonsense. The Russians have no problems building space stations without
their Shuttle.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:15 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>NASA spends over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight. I think
>>you've indulged in some creative accounting.

> The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
> memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year.

This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter,
amortization of Shuttle development costs, and a host of other costs. Adding
those in puts the cost at well over a billion per flight. Hell, interest
costs on development alone adds over a quarter billion per flight (BTW,
this interest is not a sunk cost since it is part of the national debt and
we are paying for it even now).

>You have done the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say.

No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
thrown in jail for fraud.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 16:21:52 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle . . .)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:

>Wind tunnel test results and CFD simulations are usually sufficient for
>design of experimental flight vehicles.  Therefore the question remains:
>If lack of *flight-test* data is seen as the long pole in the tent
>(holding things up), why isn't it being flown on the admittedly
>experimental DC-X (and DC-Y)?

DC-Y is a proof of concept. The first goal must me to achieve reusable
flight with rapid turnaround and some payload (even if only a pound).

After that is achieved, we will have an excellent testbed for doing
research on aerospike nozzles, new materials, and everything else.
This will allow us to continuously improve the system.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:20:45 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Only the US and the former USSR?  I think ESA, ISAS, NASDA, and Great
>Wall, Inc. might disagree with you.  They might also point out that
>Israel and India have launched satellites on multiple occasions, and
>ask you how you define "precision orbit."  France, Britain, and Italy
>are kind of retired from the launch business, but they are ESA
>partners.  Brazil is coming up fast as a contender here.

Bill, there's a difference between "demonstration capability" and "cocked and
loaded." ESA is not in the business of launching ASATs.

I'll spot the French the benefit of the doubt, because they have an in-house
solids capability and cuz they're the French.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:24:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>Given that the thing can fly automatically, why add pilots?

For the exact same reason airliners (which can also fly automatically)
have pilots: to deal with emergency situations.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 584
------------------------------