Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO002.TXT

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

Date: Wed,  6 Jan 93 05:06:40
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #002
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  6 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 002

Today's Topics:
                       *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
                       AUSROC II: A Post Mortem
                           DCX tech. info?
            Fabrication (was fast track failures) (2 msgs)
       How much radiation can an organism survive? (Panspermia)
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
                   Mars Observer Update - 01/05/93
                     Moon Dust For Sale (2 msgs)
        Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
     Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
      Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
   Shuttle has nothing to do with DC (was: Let's be more specific)
                        Soviet space disaster?
        Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
         Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)

    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: 5 Jan 93 19:25:07 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jason Cooper) writes:
> >> I don't know exactly how you will get the hydrogen to fuse in the ramjet.
> >> So far that problem remains unsolved here on Earth, except for fusion
> >> reactions catalyzed by atomic explosions.
> >
> >The H will be highly compressed by the pressures from the rest of the H
> >coming in.  It'll be blocked where it stops by magnetic fields...
>
> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.

I understand that a pile of human bodies (still alive somehow) as
large as the sun would have about the same mass, but would produce
more heat!!
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 08:47:31 GMT
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: AUSROC II: A Post Mortem
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets

This was a fascinating article.  Thanks for providing it.  It's
interesting to me for two things: 1) analysis of failures is rarely done
in my field (but should be) and 2) it points out that building rockets is hard!

Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
           Legislated morality is the enemy of true morality

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:18:11 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX tech. info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Edward V. Wright ([e-mail]) wrote:
: 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.

How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering???

Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be
controlled from the ground?

--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:32:42 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>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.

To hell with that. Take a look at the "commercial" world. OSC's teething
problems are quite amusing... I understand SDIO started shopping around for
other launchers after the second or third Pegasus launch.


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

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 19:12:26 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V.
Wright) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke)
writes:
>
> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Edward
> >V. Wright) writes:
> >> >
> >> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
> >> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
> >> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
> >> fabrication done by tradesmen.
>
> Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman!
>
Oops.  Must be a glitch in my newsreader (right !;)

Aside to John Neff:  your use of "The FSU" confused for a second
- Former Soviet Union - right?  How about USSW - USS Were -
a joke I heard somewhere:-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 18:58:22 GMT
From: Stan Friesen <[e-mail]>
Subject: How much radiation can an organism survive? (Panspermia)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio,sci.med.physics

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
|> The Panspermia hypothesis is that after life originates on one
|> planet (or in a molecular cloud, or whatever) it can be transported
|> by natural causes to other planets, so that life need be created
|> only once per galaxy (or universe) in order to become widely
|> distributed.

Yep, that's the idea.  In fact the main proponent of it, an astronomer, also
supports the steady-state model of the uiverse (as opposed to the big-bang model),
so he can propose that life has *always* existed, and thus need never arise
on its own, anywhere.

|> People have found that microbes of some sort, when ensporulated
|> (is that the right word?  dormant anyway) are very resistant to
|> radiation, and thus could make the trip from star to star, enter
|> a sterile but nutritious environment, and start living, reproducing,
|> evolving and generally creating a biosphere.

This can be true, for some forms.

|> I personally don't believe that this happens very often, but it's
|> an intriguing idea.

I don't believe it happens at all.

|> Anyway, does anyone have a reference for the work on the microbe
|> spores?  I am interested in exactly how much radiation these
|> things can take.

It varies (widely) depending on species.
Generalization is pretty near impossible on this issue.

Your best bet is to go to Biological Abstracts and search the keyword index
for articles on radiation.

--
[e-mail]            (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:18 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
>
> NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
> Shuttle is operations, not research.
>

And NASA also owns a wide variety of aircraft (ie: T-38, Gulfstreams,
Lears, etc.) and capital equipment (buildings, computers, wind tunnels,
etc.) that it uses for operations.  I'll ignore the capital equipment.  But
if I follow your argument, all flights not related to research should be
provided by a private firm?  What about training?  What about flights in
and out of Edwards?  I'd bet that NASA owns a few flight articles that are
used for operations and not for research.  Do we apply your argument
against using the shuttle for operations to those areas as well?

The Shuttle supporters (for the most part) continue to question whether or
not the DC-X/Y/1 supporters are suggesting that we cancel Shuttle before
DC-X/Y/1 is operational.  I've requested that the DC-? proponents put up a
straw man proposal of exactly when the Shuttle would be phased out.  This
request was ignored.  I'll reiterate the request:  Exactly when do you
propose discontinuing Shuttle operations?  Exactly when do you believe DC-1
will fly?  Exactly what will happen if DC-1, for whatever reason, is years
late, or turns out to be as problematical or more problematical as the
Shuttle?

Its my impression that the Shuttle supporters are against shelving the
United States' manned space program merely to save a few billion a year.
They aren't against saving money, they aren't against DC-1, they just
believe that there are unacceptable risks associated with depending on a
system that isn't flight ready, let alone exist.  I will not support a
position that requires the cancellation of the US's manned space program
years in advance of a replacement from the private sector.

But if you continue to believe that the supporters of the Shuttle are, by
definition, anti DC-X/Y/1, then continuing any discussion is pointless.

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
[e-mail]
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 18:58:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/05/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                         January 5, 1993

     The Mars Observer spacecraft is being prepared for the outer
cruise flight sequence.  Adjustments to point the high-gain
antenna directly at the sun are continuing through Jan. 6, 1993,
at which time the antenna will be powered on to begin receiving
and sending engineering and science data.

     The spacecraft team reports that all spacecraft subsystems
and instruments are performing well.  The camera "bakeout" to
prepare the instrument for operation will continue through Jan.
14, followed by a focusing test on Jan. 18.

     Today the spacecraft is about 43 million kilometers (27
million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 36,000
kilometers per hour (23,000 miles per hour) relative to Earth.
The spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
97,000 kilometers (61,000 miles per hour).  One-way light time is
approximately 128 seconds.

                             #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 19:21:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:

>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.

How does that work with NASA as a launch service? For example, providing
launch facilities/personell to universities who have constructed payloads
and purchased a launch vehicle from the manufacturer. Or launching a
communications sattellite from the shuttle, owned & operated by a private
sector corporation? I thought part of the initial selling point of the
shuttle was that NASA could recapture its investment through the "putting
stuff in orbit" business.

What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
for that.

I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
it would be stupid not to.
------
Tim Harincar                Millions long for immortality
Central Minnesota             who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry            themselves on a rainy Sunday
[e-mail]            afternoon. -Susan Ertz

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 19:18:12 GMT
From: Andrew Betz <[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 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?

i was reading an article in _final frontier_ about moon rocks.
i forget the precise value specified, but it was astronomical
(ok, i couldn't resist that one - sorry).

drew
--
[e-mail]
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 18:33:19 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

F.Baube x554 ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 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,

Nope.  The warhead wouldn't be in orbit and its doubtful if any fragments
would attain orbital velocity of any kind during the explosion.

> 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 ?
>
A lot of interception technology is based on giving the target enough of
a shock to disable the high-tech firing mechanisms and/or guidance systems.
Nuclear warheads don't explode when intercepted.  They just don't go off
when they get to the target, if they get there at all.  You just wind up
with a lot of small, very dangerous impact craters on the ground.

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

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 22:02:50 GMT
From: Randy Burns <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space

What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it
will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization?

I've noticed that there are some _extremely_ capital intensive schemes around
which might make the marginal cost of launching mass to orbit fairly cheap.
(I'm thinking of mechanisms like Clarke's space "elevator" or Bull's
gun). I'm more interested in technologies like the Henson Sling or SSTO
technology that might be more useful to private citizens and less likely to
be shelved or monopolized by governments or mega-corps.


Thanks!

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:17:53 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
>>does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

>No, it's an aircraft _I_ am using to support my research activities.

No, it's an aircraft you and hundred other passengers are using
to support a wide range of activities.


>Ditto, mutatis mutandis.  Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a
>TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research
>activities, pursuant to its charter.

So, if your lab bought its own Airbus, hired its own flight crew,
sold flights to paying customer, constructed its own communications
facilities and rented those to commercial customers, all of that
would be research and development?


>It is my understanding that this thread originated when someone
>claimed that NASA was not respecting its charter by operating the
>shuttle, which is admittedly not an experimental craft anymore.  I
>disagree, as long as the shuttle manifest contains only genuine R&D.

Which hasn't been the case for many years now.

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 19:43:00 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle has nothing to do with DC (was: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:

>> NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
>> Shuttle is operations, not research.

>And NASA also owns a wide variety of aircraft (ie: T-38, Gulfstreams,
>Lears, etc.) and capital equipment (buildings, computers, wind tunnels,...

The difference is that there is no private competition for these
facilities and in the case of the private jets, they save money. Shuttle
doesn't save a dime and does harm the US commercial space industry by
dumping launch services.

>The Shuttle supporters (for the most part) continue to question whether or
>not the DC-X/Y/1 supporters are suggesting that we cancel Shuttle before
>DC-X/Y/1 is operational.

As far as *I* am concerned, the two have absolutely nothing to do with
each other. It is *MY* belief that Shuttle has failed and must be replaced
with cheaper alternatives. I believe that Shuttle has failed on its own
merrits and not relative to any hypothetical vehicle.

Long time readers of sci.space will know that I held this position LONG
before there was a DC program and will continue to hold it regardless of
what happens to DC.

Now I have no idea how other people feel, I only speak for myself so
your use of the plural may not be accurate.

>I've requested that the DC-? proponents put up a
>straw man proposal of exactly when the Shuttle would be phased out.  This
>request was ignored.

I have already answered that from *MY* point of view. Again, I cannot
speak for others so the use of the plural is incorrect above. I will
restate it:

At this time, DC is too risky a venture to gamble the entire US space
program. What is needed is an intermediate system which does those things
we actually do with Shuttle but at lower cost. At the same time, the
alternative must be commercially funded since Shuttle is consuming too much
money to build anything. Finally, it would be nice if didn't destroy all
the elements of this intermediate system.

What we need is:
1. facility with shuttle like amounts of space, power, and life support where
   experiments can be run.
2. Human and automated access to that facility
3. A mechanism to return experiments.

To get all this, we should:
1. Several companies have offered to build facilities like this. The
   Industrial Space Facility is perhaps the most famous. All they require
   is for government to agree to be an anchor tennent if they can build it.
   Step one would be for NASA to sign just such an agreement.

2. For access, we use a Syouz mated to an Atlas or Titan. This is a cost
   effective alternative which will work for a long time or can be
   dropped shold DC pan out.

3. The Russians also make a wide variety of return capsules which we can
   use for this. In a pinch, we build our own return capsule. This is a
   very simple vehicle like an Appollo or Gemini capsule. We in the past,
   and the Russians today make these without much trouble. Surely we
   aren't so far behind the Russians (and our own capabilites only recently)
   that we can't do this. Like 1 and 2 above, this is something the
   government busy, not developes.

If government will agree to use these facilities, the private sector can
build them. Total development costs should be under one years Shuttle
operations costs and operations would be at most 40% of Shuttle costs.

If DC works, we save a billion or so more. If it fails, we simply settle
for the $3 billion or so this saves. BTW, note that under this scheme
we get access for 365 days instead of the 40 or so we get today.

All it would take to get it is for NASA to agree to use it when it
became available.

>Its my impression that the Shuttle supporters are against shelving the
>United States' manned space program merely to save a few billion a year.

That is why we haven't gotten anywhere in space for the last 15 years.

Tell me something, shuttle supporters, how much would a Shuttle system
be worth to you? Suppose a flight costs $10 billion; would you still
support it? How about $100 billion?

>But if you continue to believe that the supporters of the Shuttle are, by
>definition, anti DC-X/Y/1, then continuing any discussion is pointless.

Again, as far as I am concerned, these are two completely separate issues.
Between Shuttle and DC there are four possible pro/con positions. I, myself,
know people holding all four positions.

  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: 5 Jan 93 09:53:33 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster?
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.space,soc.culture.soviet

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Stavar) writes:
>Charles Packer ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Somebody told me recently that they had read that the
>: former Soviet Union had suffered a space disaster in which
>: they had to leave one of their cosmonauts in orbit to die
>: because they couldn't rescue him. My informant said that
>: his information came from reading newspaper accounts of
>: formerly secret material that was made public in the last
>: couple of years during the unravelling of the Soviet system
>: and the subsequent increase in openness of discussion and
>: publication in Russia.

This is most probably an exaggerated account of Krikalev's mission
5/91 - 3/92.  He was originally to return in 10/91 but this was
delayed until the next crew exchange on 3/92 due to the Kazak cosmonaut
being added to the 10/91 mission. Krikalev was never in any unusual
danger because of this, and he was never alone on Mir. I met him last
August so he made it back okay. This story was grossly exaggerated
by the western press. Krikaley got extra bonus pay for staying also.

Soyuz are always left attached to Mir for emergency return of
the crew. Information is radioed to Mir periodicially about emergency
reentry and landing sites available around the world. If cosmonauts really
needed to return to Earth from a space station, they need only to fly
the Soyuz back like the Soyuz T-14 when Vasyutin got sick.

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

Yes. This last one sounds like stories about the Soyuz 1 accident.
There were rumors for years about someone listening to Komarov
as he decended to Earth and the parachutes failed (this part is true,
he was the first spaceflight fatality). Its very  unlikely his wife
would even have been in contact during his short and troubled mission.
Also, for any manned spacecraft yet constructed I'm sure it would be
impossible to reach the Sun by a failed retro burn, there just isn't
enough performance. It's probably impossible to even intentionally fly
to the Sun.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:55:46 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Because you continually fail to recognize the lobbying power of Rockwell
International, Lockheed, and Thiokel <sp> to keep the Shuttle going.

You have no imagination of the outcry which would occur to use Soyuz as a
primary piece of hardware in an American program.

"Look, we really don't give a damn about our own technologies anymore, so we
will become depending on the Russians."

If you don't believe me, wait until the fight occurs to kill Freedom dead and
rent space on Mir, which is a MUCH more likely scenario than killing a symbol
of technological pride and replacing it with a tin can.

Symbolism. So where can I FTP a picture of a Soyuz and Mir on the net? Posters
of Shuttle decorate the walls of Aerospace departments and children's bedrooms
across the country. Not many of Soyuz.

Why does Henry get so huffy about CanadARM on Shuttle flights? :-) Symbolism.
"My country built this; it is a symbol of what we CAN do."

>>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.

No, Allen, if you're going to use cost as a driver to save money, the penny
pinchers on the Hill are just as likely to take it to extreme and send our boys
out to the steppes. Why waste the money of building our own launchers? We'll
just buy the already integrated package and assemble it here, like we do
Japanese cars, and launch it into space. After all, it will save sooo much more
money than trying to integrate a Soyuz on Titan or Atlas.

Your idea is a piss poor solution, other than (I suspect your TRUE agenda) to
stimulate the revival of Made in the U.S. tin cans as an alternate to the
Shuttle.


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

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:40 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] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly)
>>electronics on the ground.... It would be bad.

>Not necessarily.  At least, not if you plan for it.
>
>Consider this scenario.

[Cold War scenario of two fleets closing together to do battle on the high seas]

>Shortly before the satellite gets within detection range of
>your fleet, you launch an SLBM, taking out your enemy's nice,
>new, expensive satellite.

>  Both fleets get hit by EMP, but you
>are prepared because you know it's coming.  Your enemy isn't
>expecting it.  Worse, he has all his planes sitting out, exposed,
>on the flight deck, waiting to launch when the satellite gives
>him targeting information.  If you're lucky, you've taken out
>all his AEW.  This puts you in a very good position....

While it's nice to think of nuclear weapons as just a bigger bomb, it ain't so.

Launch of a SLBM would automatically cause panic buttons to be hit all over the
place and would result in a MUCH higher alert status of strategic nuclear
forces. Which thereby puts the Other Side into a higher alert status and
pretty soon everyone is sweating more profusely than either first imagined...

Secondly, U.S. forces are EMP hardened, so all you've done is:

    A) Raised the level of tension
    B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
    C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
       NOT a good thing.

Tomorrow's battlegrounds are as much as hearts and minds as they are of men and
machines.

Thirdly, you don't need a nuke for EMP kills; there are various dark projects
which perform tricks with conventional explosives and electronics which will
fit inside of a Tomahawk or their Russian counterpart.


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 002
------------------------------