Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO040.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:08:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #040
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 13 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 040

Today's Topics:
                       *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
                       Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
                Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
                         best food for space?
                        Contacting Pete Conrad
                              DC reentry
                            Delta Clipper
                        Launch of Soyuz TM-16
  Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) (2 msgs)
                         Lunar bill press kit
                          Moon Dust For Sale
                            Moon Dust Sold
                       Railgun in Southwest US
                    Saving an overweight SSTO....
      Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
                        Soviet space disaster
        was: question about SETI, now: planets around pulsars?

    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: 12 Jan 93 19:21:09 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>well, sorta. The *correct* name of the book from my earlier posting is
>"The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff.
>Its ISBN number is 0-471-61912-4. *sigh* memory is the first to go...
>


Actually,  memory is the second thing to go :-)

So henry.  if we were interested in deep space cruisers,  what sort of
time scale, R&D Budget and technical problems stand in the way?

Are we looking at some sort of Manhattan project? or something as big for
20 years? or is it more like SDI on a permanent basis.a

You mentioned about something the size of hanford,  but for how long.?

thanks

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:50:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren Carpenter) writes:
>... It seems that an easy way to raise the ISP of a fuel is
>to preheat it.  An exothermic reaction consumes some of its output in
>heating the unreacted material up to reaction temperature.  So, liquid Al
>at 1000C ought to burn a bit hotter than solid Al at room temperature...

True only up to a point.  For any fuel combination there's a limiting
temperature, where the reaction products start to decompose, and high-
performance rocket engines started reaching it long ago.  One reason
(not the only one) why the SSMEs run quite hydrogen-rich, for example,
is that the flame wouldn't get much hotter with a leaner mix.

Given that an aluminum-oxygen rocket is going to have to run very
oxygen-rich for useful performance, though, it might help some.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:21:28 GMT
From: Ed Faught <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>  writes:

>inside liquid helium at 6 atm. pressure, 4% of the antiprotons
>live several microseconds. If the helium is "contaminated" with a
>small amount of hydrogen (0.04 %) this time is divided by about 10.

Having a limited education in cryogenics is hampering my understanding of this
phenomenon. I understood that helium cannot exist in liquid state at 6 Atm. I
can't see how one may "contaminate" it, either. Would someone kindly enlighten
me? ( in layman's terms, if possible )
--
Ed Faught  WA9WDM  [e-mail]
 Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:42:26 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: best food for space?

-From: [e-mail] (rabjab)
-Subject: best food for space?
-Date: 12 Jan 93 21:56:10 GMT
-Organization: ucsd

-I watched Robinson Crusoe on Mars the other day and got the idea to
-put my food in toothpaste tubes.  I squezed out all the paste into
-jars and used the blender to turn various foods into paste.  I'm
-having some problems getting the paste in the tubes, however.  Does
-anyone have suggestions?

-When that problem is solved, I am going to need to get more tubes.

Backpacking outfitter stores often sell (or at least used to sell)
reusable transparent plastic toothpaste-type tubes for carrying things
like peanut butter, jelly, honey, etc. on a backpacking trip. The back
end of the tube (the end opposite the screw cap) is completely open, and
you dump your food in there, then take a little clip and use it to clamp
the back end shut. On the camping trip, you squeeze the food out the end
with the screw cap. When you get home, you take off the clip, wash out the
tube, and you're ready to fill it again. If you put perishable foods in
the tube and don't have refrigeration, watch out for food poisoning.

You sound like the perfect person to contact Pilsbury and get their recipe
for Food Sticks (a snack item that was sold in the late 1960s or early
1970s, I believe) to post to sci.space, or perhaps you could even talk them
into starting up manufacture again. I liked the chocolate ones the best -
a perfect "astronaut food". (They may even have been called Space Food Sticks
for a while.)

And while you're thinking about foods for space, don't forget Tang. I don't
know whether it was developed specifically for the space program (anybody
know?), but it was selected for the space program as an orange juice
substitute, because it's essentially nonperishable, and it can be shipped
up dry and reconstituted with water (which is available as a by-product of
onboard power generation). Reports from the early days of the space program
indicate that dried orange juice doesn't reconstitute very well, which is why
a substitute was selected.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 15:05:20 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Contacting Pete Conrad
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>[]
>
>Does anyone know how I could get in contact with Pete Conrad? I have
>a couple of questions regarding Apollo 12 I need to get answered.
>

Contact Pete care of MacDAC in California where he is chief pilot (I'm
sure his real title is more impressive than that, but that's what
he's doingt) of Delta Clipper.  Pete may make it back to the moon yet!

++rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       [e-mail]
                         < Do Not Write In This Space>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:49:02 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC reentry
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Um, it may have shared a certain amount of design heritage with missile
>warhead, but I'm pretty sure it does *not* share the trajectory, since
>an ICBM-warhead trajectory involves retaining very high velocity down
>almost to the ground.  (A certain amount of deceleration is inevitable
>in thick low-altitude air.)  A spacecraft, e.g. DC, does almost all of
>its decelerating at very high altitudes where the heat load is modest.

The heat load, remember, is the integral of the heating rate.
Gradual reentry is a two-edged sword.  The heating *rate* may
be lower, but you're travelling through the atmosphere for a
longer period of time, so the total heat soak is higher.  This
nose-first reentry was picked to minimize this total heat soak.

This is not the first time this type of reentry has been proposed
for a  manned spacecraft.  The High-Performance Space Cruiser,
described in "High Frontier: A New National Strategy," also used
an ICBM-like trajectory.  The damn thing even looked like an
overgrown missile warhead, with the addition of a popup bubble
canopy for the pilot to use on orbit.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:38:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta Clipper
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>I disagree. The point is that it decreases cost by one to two orders
>>of magnitude.

>You answered too quick. If you'd read a little further, what I wanted
>to know was *how high* is the LEO they are talking about.

I know. The point is that is an irrleant question. DC cuts the cost of
access to ANY orbit by an order of magnitude. Who cares how you get there.

However, DC-Y should deliver 20,000 to a 200KM orbit and 16,000 to a 400
KM orbit. It also delivers 10,000 to a 400KM polar orbit.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 14:11:55 +0100
From: Rainer Kracht <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch of Soyuz TM-16
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Today (Jan 10) Radio Moscow announced that Soyuz TM-16 will be
 launched on January 24. The first crew consists of Genadi Manakov
 and Alexander Polishchuk.

 [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 17:15:25 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>A warhead re-entry vehicle is not a good model for a lander. A warhead
>>doesn't attempt to do atmospheric braking. It's shaped like a long narrow
>>cone, or hypersonic bullet.... A lander presents a blunt surface to the
>>atmosphere and tries to shed as much velocity as possible by atmospheric
>>braking.
>
>Ah, which lander are you talking about.  The Delta Clipper *is* shaped
>like a bullet.  It does not present its blunt surface (base) on entry.
>It makes a nose-first, high-angle-of-attack entry modelled after an
>ICBM-warhead trajectory.  This was chosen because of the large amount
>of data available from computer modelling of missile warheads.
>
>It seems rather presumptuous to claim you know more than McDonnell
>Douglas engineers working on the project about what is and isn't
>possible when you are uninformed on such basic facts as this.

I don't have the direct pipeline into MacDD that Allen seems to have,
but from what little description he's posted, I don't see anything
about Delta Clipper retaining a 30 km/sec velocity to near ground
level. Nor would I consider a 1,279,000 pound (104,100 pound dry),
40 foot in diameter, 127 foot tall vehicle "a bullet". Certainly not
when compared to a 8 inch in major diameter, 4 foot long, 80 pound
nuclear re-entry vehicle.

From the descriptions I've seen posted, DC-Y is supposed to enter
nose first, aerobrake down to under 1 km/sec, then turnover and
descend on it's rocket exhaust. From Alan's latest post, the vehicle
is supposed to be subject to only 95 psf Q at turnover. If that's a
faulty description, please post the actual flight profile.


>>Shuttle designers originally
>>considered a titanium skin for the Orbiter, but even a metal as refractory
>>as titanium wasn't up to the job
>
>Yet Another Historical Error.  Refractory metals were up to the
>job until NASA doubled the size of the Shuttle orbiter to meet
>military payload demands.  (And some engineers at Rockwell still
>felt that refractory metals were viable, given sufficient ingenuity.
>Langley, and possibly other NASA centers have since come up with
>refractory metals which they believe can do the job.  Some of these
>were considered for use on the fifth orbiter.)

Even the SR71 uses fuel to help cool it's titanium skin, and it travels
more than four times slower than a re-entry vehicle. The only practical
metal more refractory than titanium is tungsten, and no one would seriously
consider a tungsten skinned vehicle. It would weigh too much, not to mention
the fabrication difficulties or the cost. Using titanium instead of aluminum
to *back up* a lighter heat shield is certainly practical, but with the
extremely good insulating qualities of available ceramic refractories, it
isn't necessary. An active cooling system could negate the need for a ceramic
shield, but would likely weigh more and be prone to breakdown. A heat shield
has to do more than not melt, it has to protect the internals of the vehicle
from the extremely high heat loads. All metals are good heat conductors, so
they make poor heat *shields*. That's why *insulating* ceramic refractories
are a preferred solution. Honeycomb composite structures are another good
solution, but remain very expensive to fabricate.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:03:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Even the SR71 uses fuel to help cool it's titanium skin, and it travels
>more than four times slower than a re-entry vehicle...

However, it does it for a much longer period.  I don't claim to be a
hypersonics guru, but my understanding is that you get *very* different
design solutions for a "hypersonic accelerator" and a "hypersonic cruiser"
(where the former is at hypersonic speeds only briefly, accelerating
towards orbit, and the latter spends much of its operating life there).

The X-20 Dyna-Soar's heat protection was mostly refractory metals, as
I recall.

>The only practical
>metal more refractory than titanium is tungsten...

A curious claim.  The X-15 used titanium only for its *low temperature*
structure, and did not use tungsten at all.  Most of its hot structure
was stainless steels of various types.  They are heavy, but not impossibly
so.  The B-70's wing and main body was stainless-steel honeycomb.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Jan 93  08:56:46
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lunar bill press kit
Newsgroups: sci.space

       Info Kits for Back to the Moon bill Available
-
Informational kits for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (also
known as the 'Back to the Moon bill') will be available on January
28. Anyone wishing a copy of the info packet, please e-mail your
snail mail address.
-
The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, to be introduced in the 103rd
Congress, will jump start the U.S. lunar exploration program by
authorizing the government to purchase lunar science data from the
private sector.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:36:14 GMT
From: Bob Martino <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Oh, Pshaw sir!

I *NEVER* let trivial facts such as those interfere with my calculations!
Why, if I did, then my furtur plans to become a political figure would
be *RUINED*!  :-)

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 [e-mail] |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin

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

Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:02 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust Sold
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Moon dust that was up for auction yesterday was sold for $42,500.  When
you include the 10% extra that goes to the auction house, that brings the
total price up to $46,750.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:12:47 GMT
From: Stu Schaffner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Railgun in Southwest US
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] wrote:
>
>
> You also has to survive the launch.  With accellerations up to 5
> million G, temperatures in the 1000's C range, and some of the most
> serious electrical and magnetic fields you can find anywhere, you
> wouldn't want to be fired out of a rail gun.  Nor would you want to
> try to design a payload which could be fired out of a rail gun.
>
> ...
> We now return you to discussions about the PEACEFUL use of space.
>

You're probably right, but perhaps we just aren't being imaginative enough.
First, couldn't an aluminum or steel ingot survive this g-load without
deforming too badly? I can think of a few peaceful uses for a whole bunch
of these in orbit...  Second, is there no alternative to a rocket burn for
orbit stabilization?  How about giving the ingot a lifting body shape with
a very simple control, like a radio-controlled explosive charge that
deforms a control surface when detonated?  A satellite could precisely
determine the ingot's orbit, then deform the control surface at just the
right time during a skip off the atmosphere.

I highly doubt that what I described would be economical, or even work at
all.  Still, it makes me wonder if we should write mass drivers off just
yet.

Stu Schaffner, not speaking for
The MITRE Corp.
(And not involved professionally in this kind of stuff at all)
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 20:33:15 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>1) It's overweight by some relatively small amount, say, 5000lbs.  This
>leaves 5000lbs payload, still a worthwhile cargo.  And the price/lb is
>double projections, but still a small fraction of ELVs.  So the
>project is still a win, albeit smaller.

The current DC-Y concept has a payload of a bit over 20,000 pounds. In
addition, there is a design margin of about 15,000 pounds. So in the above
scenario where the vehicle is 5K pounds overweight the un-used margine
goes to payload and thus payload goes to 30,000 pounds.

>2) The mass overrun is a substantial fraction of payload, or exceeds
>payload.  Then a possibility would be to delete the life support and
>crew cockpit and use the thing unmanned....

Note that the 15% margin allows for lots of mistakes. However, if
it turns out that overruns are too great, the program is still
a success. We will know EXACTLY what systems must be weight reduced
to make it work. After a few years of research in those areas, we
will have a working vehicle.

>And in any case, you know a lot more than when you started, and you
>can do it right next time!

Or, you continuously improve the DC-Y until it flies.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 15:45:21 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Let's see, NASA should sell Shuttle and it's support facilities at cost,
>>lease them back from the buyer at a profit to the leasing agency, and
>>then they'll save big bucks. What's wrong with this picture? Airlines
>>use lease back arrangements because of the *tax* advantages the arrangement
>>offers. The leasing company profit is less than the taxes saved so everybody
>>but the average taxpayer wins. NASA doesn't pay taxes, they spend them.
>>
>
>Um, gary unless you buy airplanes for fun,  there are few tax advantages.
>Corporations get depreciation, just like leasing agencies.  Individuals
>lease cars because the lessor gets an advantage the individual doesnt.

Owned assets have to be depreciated by the rule of 78s, or some other
long term schedule. Meanwhile, lease costs can be written off directly
as operating expenses in the year they are incurred. It is quite often
much better from a tax viewpoint to lease rather than own. It's dependent
on your cashflow prospects for the next several years, of course, as to
which strategy saves you the most money.

>Airlines often lease aircraft, because they wish to reduce risk.  They
>dont want to tie up precious capital into equipment they may not
>wish to keep.  It's leverage.

That depends on the lease agreement. Give back leases often have large
penalty clauses. It's often simpler to sell unneeded property than it
is to convince the leasing company to take it back without penalty.
Of course you can always default on the lease and let them repossess,
but that tends to play hell with your credit rating. Lease agreements
also normally require the lessor to assume all risks to the leased
equipment via mandatory insurance or bond. So your risks aren't materially
reduced by leasing. You lease if you need an immediate tax break, or
if you don't have the cash for a purchase and your credit rating is so
bad you can't negotiate a loan. Otherwise you buy or *rent* depending
on the duration you expect to need the equipment. Rental is usually
a bad idea for assets you intend to use for an extended period.

Of course if you can get a *sweetheart* deal, leasing can be great.
Some companies lease from another subsidary of the same parent
corporation. This is a great tax dodge since you get a double
deduction, expense writeoff *and* depreciation. Plus, since the
money just goes from one pocket to another, you can pay outrageous
lease fees.

>The government leases likes private industry, because it spreads costs
>from one year to several.  The idea behind leasing is that also the
>lessor may have lower costs then the organic entity.

Leasing does allow an *apparent* reduction in the deficit because
future lease payments aren't carried as *debt* on the books. But
the capital to retire that lease has to be provided just as surely
as money has to be budgeted to retire a bank note. This is mere
accounting slight of hand. Large leasing agencies can often strike
better volume deals with a manufacturer than small individual companies,
but the US government isn't a small company.

>FOr instance, I lease electric power(ok, buy)  rather then make it myself.
>The government buys airline tickets for employees, because the market
>is much more efficient then their own system.  Sure, the DOD has a big
>aircraft fleet, and most every agency has a couple jets,  but
>these are for executive transport or emergency stuff.

The operative word here is "buy". You buy electricity, the government
buys airline tickets. They're purchasing a *service*, or an expendible
commodity, not an asset. This is a totally different thing. It's always
smart to get serivces from the low cost provider, providing that provider
can provide them in a timely and satisfactory manner. (Boy, could I use
"provider" one more time in a paragraph? I just did! :-))

>The idea behind having a leasing company take over shuttle ops, is maybe
>(BIG IFF) they can have more effeciency then NASA.  I dont really
>think so,  but from a political point of view, by eliminating the
>political base inside nasa, it does open up more activities
>in space.

Well, I think a private operation can be more efficient than the
government at running shuttle ops. Rockwell already does much of
it under contract, so they already have most of the necessary
expertise. Operating on their own, they would eliminate much of
the paperwork required of a government agency and it's contractors,
and they could streamline operations to only the people who touch
the hardware and a normal industrial supervisory staff. That could
potentially halve the standing army.

>>Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
>>at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
>>Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
>>the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
>>the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.
>>
>AH,  but wha tif NASA, starts telling other people, we will pay
>big money for launch services and starts procuring them.  suddenly
>Northwest DC-1 starts offering tickets at0.9 times shuttle costs.
>Allens point is that a market will be more effecient then NASA,
>and IF we can be capitlaist abou;this,  then maybe we will win.

Yep. Once the government starts buying *tickets*, they'll go with
the cheapest airline. Costs may increase in the short term if they
sell the system at cost, but competition will soon emerge. However,
in that case, Rockwell takes it in the neck. I think they're smart
enough to recognize this, so I expect they wouldn't be willing to
buy Shuttle at cost.

>>One more time. NASA sells Shuttle and support facilities at scrap prices
>>and writes off development costs as a bad investment. This is what Allen
>>wants. Rockwell Spacelines buys the scrap and begins operating it. Sells
>>NASA, NASDA, Hughes, and anyone else who wants one a ticket. Using commercial
>>operating practices, Rockwell Spacelines makes money, NASA et al get reduced
>>launch costs, and everyone but the poor abused taxpayer wins. (he always
>>loses anyway)
>>
>Well, considering the taxpayer is bleeding 4 billion dollars out the ass
>every year, we cant lose any more.

This is the only way privatization of Shuttle can work. It's got to
be sold as depreciated hardware with development and aquisition costs
sunk. In this case, Rockwell can cut costs sharply and still operate
at a profit. It makes potential competitors have to work much harder
to match their prices. That's good for NASA because they want lower
costs. And it's good for the space enthusiast because he wants lower
costs. It won't be so good for Pegasus, Atlas, and Delta, but MacDD
might come out of it with a tidy profit if DC pans out.

>>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>
>
>And what if NASA auctions off it's facilities,  and leases them so we
>recover the market fraction???  Hell that's how your company got started.
>You bought surplus scrap Eastern equipment  and re-oriented the business.
>By your analysis, eastern should have been doing this and made a fortune.
>why didn't they?  because they couldn't.  some organizations are incapable
>of reform.

Well, I didn't lease the equipment back to them. They were bankrupt.
I reoriented the equipment to a completely different enterprise.
Eastern was in the airline business with maintenance as a necessary
evil. They weren't in the testing business. It's just serendipity
that some of their maintenance equipment turned out to be suited
to a testing firm, especially when purchased for pennies on the dollar.
The revenues from my firm wouldn't begin to cover Eastern's costs.
And they couldn't reorient their maintenance equipment to another
business area while they still needed it for operations. It's not
the same thing at all.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary

534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 06:02:00 GMT
From: Bill Edwards <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster
Newsgroups: sci.space

DN>>I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space
DN>>programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions
DN>>This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in quest
DN>>flying off directly into the sun.  The story mentioned something a
DN>>the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with
DN>>up to the very end.

DN>Yes. This last one sounds like stories about the Soyuz 1 accident.

I've come across a few references to Komerov's wife supposedly having
heart-rendering radio conversations with him during his flight. But as the
difficulties with the Soyuz 1 flight seem not to have been a precursor to
the parachute problem so it seems unlikely they are true.  There seem also
to have been rumours about manned re-entry accidents before Gagarin.
Again, this seems very unlikely as, from Vostock 1, all Soviet manned
flights have been announced before retro fire.  A number of unmanned
Vostok ships did go the "wrong way" before Gagarin's flight though.

This latest story seems to be an combination of all of this.


Bill / Usenet: [e-mail]

---
 . Orator V1.12 #7 . From the Wye Valley in Wales


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

Date: 12 Jan 93 11:43:47
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: was: question about SETI, now: planets around pulsars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (robert.f.casey) writes:

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

   >Astronomers are very interested in the immediate vicinity of pulsars,
   >because it's an excellent bet that you can find objects of great theoretical
   >interest (accretion disks and such) there.  Peculiar and conspicuous objects
   >thereabouts would not be missed.  And yes, astronomers take the possibility

   About a year or so ago, some astronomers thought that they might have
   found planets orbiting a pulsar.  One suspect pulsar planetary system
   turned out to be false (orbit of one "planet" was 1/2 the time of Earth's,
   and thus suspect), but another looked good then.  Anyone know if this
   other (at the time) good detection has held up?  Confirmed?

The pulsar is PSR 1257+12, with timing anomalies consistent with the
presence of at least two planets of few Earth masses in  66 and 99 day
orbits (approximate). There is a possible third planet with orbital
period >> 1 year. The timing has remained consistent with the presence
of the planets and there is apparently the beginning of a hint of
evidence for planet-planet coupling in the timing, which was predicted
and is considered a "smoking gun" for confirmation.

There are other potential candidate pulsars which may have planets
around them, not yet confirmed.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict            *
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 040
------------------------------