Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO001.TXT

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

Date: Wed,  6 Jan 93 05:00:24
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #001
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  6 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 001

Today's Topics:
                            averting doom
                       Contamination / Surveyor
                       DCX tech. info? (2 msgs)
                             Fabrication
             How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
                 Justification for the Space Program
                     Moon Dust For Sale (2 msgs)
                      NASA flight simulator code
               Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
      Overly "success" oriented program causes failure (2 msgs)
        Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
                        Soviet space disaster?
                       SSTO vs 2 stage (2 msgs)
   Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs)
                      Toutatis Images Available

    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: Tue, 5 Jan 93 08:29:08 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: averting doom

-From: [e-mail] (Len Evens)
-Subject: Re: averting doom
-Date: 5 Jan 93 00:21:23 GMT
-Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ

-> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
-> >from a U.P. story
-> >
-> >         WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
-> >     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
-> >     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
-> >     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
-...
-Unfortunately, this may confuse people about the issue of global
-warming which is something which may radically affect human societies
-in the next several generations and which we may be able to do
-something about.

-Leonard Evens      [e-mail]      708-491-5537
-Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

The local "conservative" newspaper made this exact claim. All the complaints
made by those wicked liberals concerning CO2 emissions and the warming of
the Earth over the next 50-200 years are irrelevant, because the slow-acting
natural forces will cause CO2 levels to be seriously depleted over the
next 100-200 *million* years. :-)

Actually, I'm not as sure as some people about the exact extent of global
warming from current CO2 emissions, and I suspect that return to "natural"
CO2 levels might take as little as a century or two following cessation of
current emissions rates. But we *do* seem to be producing CO2 faster than
natural systems can absorb it at the moment, and trying to put trends that
act over hundreds of millions of years into the context of what will happen
over the next few centuries (dismissed as a "little blip") is silly.

Another factor to consider - the major mechanism proposed for CO2 absorption
is the biologically-controlled feedback mechanism that tends to regulate
temperatures by reducing the levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 as the sun
heats up (Tommy Mac would call it "Gaia"). If at some distant future time
humans were to override the natural system by introducing large quantities
of CO2 to keep the plants alive, they would also override the temperature
regulation feature - and in the absence of technical solutions like huge
orbiting mirrors, the increased heat output of the sun together with the
increased CO2 levels would accelerate the heating process.

If humans are still around 50-100 million years from now and can't think
of any clever solutions with tens of millions of years to think about the
problem, that will be a truly pitiful state of affairs.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:57:52 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Contamination / Surveyor

    I recall reading that when an Apollo brought
back parts from a Surveyor, NASA was surprised and
worried to find earthly contamination on them, implying
that certain bugs can survive the vacuum and radiation,
and also that the pre-flight decontamination was inadequate.

    can anyone describe how this changed pre-flight
decontamination procedures, and what was learned about
the bugs ?

    I've read where the Mars SNAKE probe might use
either heat decontamination or hydrogen peroxide gas,
it hasn't been determined which, and so it is being
designed with either/both in mind.

--
* Fred Baube         * when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* [e-mail]       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* #include <disclaimer.h> * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 16:14:25 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX tech. info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Gassaway)  writes:

>What is the size (height, diameter) and mass of this first test prototype?

the DCX is 39 feet tall and weighs 22,200 pounds empty.

>Thrust?

On the order of 60,000 pounds but don't remember the exact amount.

>Flight profile of the prototype - low altitude hop, suborbital, orbital?

flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
test three demonstrates flying longer distances, some maneuvers to be
executed at reentry, and use of GPS.

>Re-entry/landing - heatshield, parachutes, powered descent al-la-LM?

DCX won't fly above 30,000 feet and lands with powered decent. there is
a parachute for emergencies.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:01:51 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX tech. info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
>test three demonstrates flying longer distances, some maneuvers to be
>executed at reentry, and use of GPS.

For the benefit of anyone not up on the lingo, Q is the aerospace
engineering symbol for dynamic pressure.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:48:37 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
-Date: 5 Jan 93 00:39:01 GMT
-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

-Moreover, there is a deeper issue here.  Yes, having the engineers out
-of tune with metal-bending is a bad thing when the objective is to
-manufacture something.  It's worse, though, when they're trying to
-*develop* something.

-Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold:  if you
-do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course
-you test it just in case).  Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work
-that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work
-the first time.  Real-world development involves *finding out* what
-works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper.  You have
-to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward.

Relevant to the discussion, I thought at least the major components of
the Shuttle were tested to some extent before STS-1. Perhaps not as much
as they could have been, but I remember all the SRB ground tests, all the
burned/exploded SSMEs, the glide tests of Enterprise, etc.

It probably wasn't practical to test some of the components (i.e. the ET)
except in actual flight. I suppose the thermal tiles could have been tested
on an unmanned capsule before the first flight of the Shuttle.

There is perhaps still some debate on whether STS-1 should have been unmanned.
I'd say that from an economic viewpoint, if the presence of humans could
significantly improve it's chances of safe return, then it was worthwhile to
have it manned. The Soviets didn't have that option with Buran - for
political reasons, it had to launch sometime around the first post-Challenger
Shuttle launch, and it didn't have life support (or onboard power other than
batteries).

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:56:39 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>There will be no private financing of a SSTO proof of concept. The current
>and projected market is simply too small and not profitable enough to
>warrent private capital.

With friends like you, who needs Gary Coffman? :-)

The one way to make certain there is no private financing is
to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any.
This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a
sure thing.  (In which case it's still dangerous, because
you'd be wrong.)

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 15:45:57 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Richard Ottolini,
[e-mail] writes:
>In a talk at Caltech earlier this month Carl Sagan that spin-off
technology arguments
>are bogus.  "If you want have better cooking pans, then do R&D on
kitchen products."
>(probably in reference to low friction materials coming out of the space
program.)
>
>Then too, any useful new technologies from NASA should be transfered to
the commercial
>sector.

Although I believe spin-off arguements to be secondary, I disagree with
Sagan's
logic. The most unexpected things come when you push the envelope and if
they are beneficial the program discovering them should get credit.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:11:02 GMT
From: Robert Frederking <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

>>    I think this is a GREAT idea and that NASA should market MORE space items
>>to help finance its budget.  Whats the approx cost per pound of moon rocks
>>anyhow?

>Go figure.. A two-inch piece of tape with moondust is expected to sell for
>~$100K, so a pound might go for $2 million or so (at that rate).

This is exactly the mistake Spain made when it started pillaging the
New World.  They saw how much gold there was, multiplied by the
current price of gold, and started hauling it back to Europe.  This
was before ``supply and demand'' was well understood.  The price of
gold was ruined, and Spain along with it.  NASA should follow the
example of the world-wide diamond cartel: sell just a little of it,
in small pieces, with lots of advertizing.

So, how much moon rock do they have?  It would be possible to do
market research and find the optimum amount to sell.

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 16:29:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:
>
>I think [selling moon rocks] is a GREAT idea and that NASA should
>market MORE space items to help finance its budget.  Whats [sic] the approx
>cost per pound of moon rocks anyhow?

NASA is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.  As such,
it receives its funding from the U.S. Congress.  Under the U.S. Code,
NASA can't engage in this kind of fund-raising efforts, nor can it sell
advertising on rockets, hold bake sales, or even accept volunteer labor
from corporations (several of which have offered free services to the
under-funded Space Exploration Initiative).  NASA gets what funding
Congress allows it and no more.  And that funding is not enough to get
us "back to the moon... this time to stay."  If you have a problem with
that, write your Congresscritter.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "...back to the moon, back to the future,
      and, this time, back to stay." -- George Bush

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:58:05 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA flight simulator code

-From: [e-mail]
-Subject: Re: Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game
-Date: 4 Jan 93 23:13:02 GMT
-Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Thompson) writes:
->
->     Would anyone happen to know where a body could get information
-> on old flight simulation code written by NASA or any of the military
-> branches? I am interested in obtaining any code that might be declassified
-> and publicly availible. In addition, any data related to the flight models
-> of old or new aircraft would be nice.

-Don't know of any old sim data and such, but it would be an interesting public
-affairs ploy or way to make money.. Have NASA design space simulator games
-based on old flight.. Have different levels. Beginner would be just to get the
-feel of the fligth, but higher levels would give you the "pilot" and possible
-crew more free-reign to actually fly the space shuttle simulation or other
-crafts.. Gemini, MErcury, Apollo, X-Crafts. And such..

-Michael Adams

I had the impression that many of the old simulators were based on *analog*
computers. I think perhaps even some of the Apollo simulation was done on
analog machines.

If so, the "code" would be largely solder joints and patch panel connections
(though digital computers with ADCs and DACs could have been involved too).
Not directly compatible with modern all-digital computers...

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:30:35 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

>|I'm looking for a '2-line orbital elements list' of junk, i.e. deceased
>|satellites, rocket-bodies and other debris that is still in orbit.
>|I have one very old list, but where could I get a list that is up to
>|date? (I don't know from where I got the list I have)
>|
>Two-line orbital elements for **every unclassified object in orbit**
>are available on the Reports and Information Dissemination Remote
>Bulletin Board System by modem. Phone [phone].
>--
>Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Sorry Bruce, thanks for playing.  Seeing how _I_ work with the entire
satcat on a daily basis, I must inform you that the Unclass elsets that are
found at this BBS cannot be the entire list.  That's right, you are not
allowed to know about ALL the Unclass birds (or pieces thereof).  For
example, a piece of (or whole for that matter) R/B of a Class sat can
sometimes be classified as Unclass.  However, with a little bit of work, I
can find out the Classified payload's elset by looking at the R/B's orbit.
Simple.  Also, there are a number of Unclass rekkie birds out there...but
with a little history file, you can easily find out where it was looking
at at a certain time (especially if we maneuvered it over to get a better
shot).

HOWEVER!  Most pieces of space debris are legit Unclass objects with no
interest to anyone save the debris community (my guys).  Therefore,
(no exact figures allowed, sorry) "a large majority" of debris pieces are
probably at the above site (which I imagine gets its info from NASA...which
is where the best civilian (public domain) Unclass satcat can be found).
I highly doubt it is the same satcat I get that is pumped out of the Mountain.

Note to all!  The more people studying orbital debris, the better.  It is
a real problem, but without more public support, the issue will not become
"important" until a satellite gets clobbered.

            Enjoy,
                    Fuzzy.
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells | "There's always an easy solution to
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |  every human problem...
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    |       ...neat, plausible, and wrong."
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |                      H.L. MENCKEN
==============================================================================

BTW: I cannot give out Unclass elset files except to government agencies via
a written request.  Even this is subject to approval.  Sorry.  I highly
recommend using NASA's satcat (found at your favorite astro BBS or ftp site).


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

Date: 5 Jan 93 16:22:08 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>I gave an example of a "success" oriented program that went sour
>for the typical reason. If you want a megaprogram that came in on
>schedule and on budget despite thousands of engineering change
>orders during development, I'll point you to GM's Saturn line
>of automobiles. A less grandiose development program would be



[ Stuff Deleted]

Actually,  GM's Saturn is a success, only if you read the PR stuff.
Remember,  Saturn was proposed in 1980,  they didn't start selling
cars until 1990.  It cost over 5 billion dollars in capital to set up.
The vehicle is strictly equivalent to an average Japanese Sedan.

Now in this 10 year time period,  GM's market share has fallen 50%.
They've lost billions on the books,  tens of thousands of workers
have lost their jobs.  GM has given enormous management bonuses.

Saturn slipped budget and schedule, based on initial projections,
they just re-estimated.  Also, in the same time,  the japanese cranked
out 4 new model cycles.  the saturn car is now 3 years old, is there
a plan for a new product, or will it take 10 years for another one.

I am sorry,  saturn is just too much like Shuttle for me.

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:16:46 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>What they don't tell you in the textbooks is that although Pert charts
>were indeed invented for Polaris, they *weren't* used to manage it --
>they were used to intimidate assorted Washington kibitzers, keeping
>them at arms length from the people who actually ran the project
>(in the traditional way, using competence and judgement rather than
>Pert charts).

Doesn't surprise me.  From my experience, that seems to be the
main way they're still used today.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:46:14 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)

Doug Mohney <[e-mail]> writes:
> Actual use of a nuclear weapon .. would result in ..
> EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and
> (possibly) electronics on the ground.
> It would be bad. And a waste of good fissionables
> for other purposes.

There could also be megabits of nugget-sized space
junk to ventilate any later space vehicles.  But also,
if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles
(or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the
atmosphere be filled with enough plutonium dust to
give every person on the planet bone cancer ?

--
* Fred Baube         * when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* [e-mail]       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* #include <disclaimer.h> * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 13:06:22 GMT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, marks@iris (Mark Stavar) writes:
>I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space
>programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions.
>This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in question
>flying off directly into the sun.  The story mentioned something about
>the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with him
>up to the very end.

Wow.  Given the delta-V requirement to cause a spacecraft in earth orbit to go
"flying off directly into the sun", this report has to be mistaken.

The first Soviet orbital test of the Vostok spacecraft (variously called
Sputnik 4 or Korabl Sputnik 1) was intended to demonstrate the spacecraft's
performance in orbit as well as test its retrofire system.  According to the
launch announcement, it did not have a heat shield, and so would be destroyed
by its encounter with the atmosphere after retrofire.  In the actual event, KS1
was aligned almost exactly 180 degrees out of position for retrofire, so the
retrofire had the effect of boosting it into a higher orbit, from which it
eventually decayed months later.

I have read reports that Komarov on Soyuz 1 had a farewell message for his wife
before his ultimately fatal reentry, but I have no way of knowing whether or
not this is true.  It's the kind of thing that tends to get reported even if it isn't
true.

The tale you report sounds like it could have its basis in those two incidents.

>I have no hard material evidence with which to back up this story - it
>may be plain wrong.

That would be my guess.

(I have received email from Ken Schmahl which says that near the end of
_Spycatcher_ there is a report of a Soviet cosmonaut being stranded in orbit
and transmitting for hours before dying.  My first impression is that this
sounds a lot like the other unreputable reports I have read, but since I think
this source is supposed to be more reliable than average, I'm going to give it
a look).
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:07:21 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Edward V. Wright writes:
>
> Bruce's "quick and simple" concept requires *two* new designs.
> You couldn't just put 5x the cargo into an existing DC-1.  Unless
> it was unusually dense, it wouldn't fit into the cargo bay.  Even
> if you could, the vehicle's balance would be off.  So you're talking
> a major redesign, then component testing of both the first and second
> stages, then testing both the first and second stages together....
>



        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
in orbit is propellant.  For example, a Mars expedition using conventional
chemical propulsion might require something like 5000 tons initial mass in
orbit, most of which is LOX and LH2.  To transfer 50 tons of LOX and LH2 to
orbit in a DC-1 using a lower stage, the DC-1 upper stage simply flys with an
empty cargo bay.  The DC-1 will then have 50 tons of available propellant
remaining in its tanks when it reaches orbit. The tanks will need the
addition of some internal baffles and propellant acquisition devices to allow
transfer of propellant in 0-G, but this technology must be developed anyway
for any scheme in which propellant is brought to orbit in small amounts and
used to tank up a larger vehicle.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:10:16 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
>in orbit is propellant.

Well, up until now, people haven't been claiming "TSTO will be cheaper
than SSTO."  They've been saying, if we have a few large payloads that
can't be broken down, TSTO will be cheaper than a larger SSTO because
it's cheaper to develop [an unproven assumption].  However, liquid
propellents certainly don't constitute a large payload that's hard
to break down into smaller pieces.

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 13:35:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> It should also be
>>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.

>They didn't study the latter possibility.

No they didn't. But they did find that operating a Soyuz using US
standards for docking, power, and life support was possible. This
strongly indicates that interfacing with Atlas or Titan is practical.
Especailly when you realize that US launch providers routinely re-
design their payload interface to suit the payload.

If I'm wrong, then it won't be the first time. If I'm correct then
we can free up billions to do important space research (including manned
space). Why does that bother you so much?

>And if you're going to be a tightwad, why don't we just contract out launch
>services to the Russians, for that matter?

Well I don't have your pesamistic view. I think US launchers can compete.

But why the black and white view? I think we can make intelligent use of
SOME Russian hardware to save us a lot of money. That doesn't mean we
must use ALL Russian hardware.

     Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:53:12 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Allen I put a question to you. Do you think that if we grounded the Shuttle
>permanently tomorrow, laid off all personell involved in the Shuttle's overhead
>and began work on the DC series that the rest of the money would be available
>for other uses in space?

If a worthwhile plan for the money where put forth, we would keep 80% to
90% of it. At this level money in Congress tends to come top down, not
bottom up. NASA gets $15B a year because that is how much clout it and its
supporters have. That money went up under Reagan and bush mostly because
both where strong supporters of space which gave NASA more clout.

>  [model deleted]

This model fails the test put to it in 89. According to your model, when
Bush proposed SEI in 89 it should have triggered another increase in
NASA funds (like Shuttle and station did). It didn't.

>Again, I support the DC program, it should be funded.

Funding a NASA SSTO to compete with the Air Force SSTO is only one of
the things we could do. We would still have an additional couple of billion
$$ for other projects.

>You are not considering
>political reality if you think that the sacrifice of the billions spent on
>shuttle would gain the DC program a dime however.

Of course not. DC is funded under a different bucket of $$. It has nothing
to do with NASA. However, a competing NASA program would be a good idea.

>>Send them to an industrial space facility....

>You always toss of the problems of systems that you think are theoretically
>superior to the Shuttle.

So you say...

>As an engineer that will be installing a payload
>in the spacehab module in 72 hours let me tell you that what you are saying
>is far from reality.

So your an expert on the subject.

>All Spacehab is is a pressure vessel. To maintain its
>structural integrity for holdin air, it relys on its structural supports
>connected to the shuttle. This is just for beginners. It totally depends on
>power from the Shuttle. This goes also for thermal control, atmosphere and
>control of the experiments via either direct astronaut intervention or
>control from the middeck.

Sounds about right. OK Dennis, as an expert, just how much would this
cost:

>IT would cost several hundred million just to make it into a free flyer.

In other words, for the cost of a single Shuttle flight we could have
a free flyer available 365 days a year for autonomous and human-tended
experiments. Looks to me like we can get a lot more work done this way
for a lot less money.

>Then you would have all of the problems relating to the fact that
>none of the experiments are designed to be removed on orbit.

But the Freedom experiments are. Besides, the Russians do this
sort of thing all the time. Surely NASA isn't that far behind?

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:07:44 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toutatis Images Available
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

What is the cell resolution of the radar images in meters and
what are the factors limiting this resolution?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 001
------------------------------