Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO046.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 05:11:26
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #046
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 14 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 046

Today's Topics:
       Antiproton efficiency (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
                 Ariane Launch Record (1979 to 1992)
                        averting doom (2 msgs)
                DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet (2 msgs)
                             DCX Testing
          Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? (4 msgs)
      Gas Guns at MAKING ORBIT (was Re: Railgun in Southwest US)
             How much? (was Re: Moon Dust Sold) (2 msgs)
                 NASA Graduate Student Summer Program
                   needed: a real live space helmet
                        Shuttle safety margins
                 Supporting private space activities

    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: 13 Jan 93 22:33:10 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antiproton efficiency (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

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

      As Jon pointed out, you gotta conserve baryon number by all known
      processes for creating antimatter

I should note that strictly speaking reprocessing through
a Hawking black hole is conjectured to violate baryon
number conservation maximally. However, that is probably
not a feasible medium term technology...

   What is baryon number?  I assume this means that p-bar creation
   processes also creat protons, so you spend 2mc^2 and throw away the
   proton.

Well, if you're careful you don't throw away the precious proton,
you dump it somewhere convenient and extract as much of the energy
back as you can, you should be able to recover at least 0.1mc^2

*  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*

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

Date: 14 Jan 93 10:01:15 +1030
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Ariane Launch Record (1979 to 1992)
Newsgroups: sci.space

                  ARIANE LAUNCH RECORD (V1 to V48)

 V      Date    Vehicle  Payload
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1  24 Dec 79     1-01  CAT (monitoring)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2* 23 May 80     1-02  CAT, Firewheel, Amsat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3  19 Jun 81     1-03  CAT, Apple, Meteosat
  4  20 Dec 81     1-04  Marecs A (Marecs 1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5* 10 Sep 82     1-05  Marecs B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6  16 Jun 83     1-06  ECS-1, Oscar 10
  7  19 Oct 83     1-07  Intelsat V-F7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8   5 Mar 84     1-08  Intelsat V-F8
  9  22 May 84     1-09  Spacenet 1
 10   4 Aug 84     3-01  ECS-2, Telecom 1A
 11  10 Nov 84     3-02  Spacenet 2, Marecs C (Marecs 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12   8 Feb 85     3-03  Arabsat 1A, Brasilsat S1
 13   8 May 85     3-04  GStar 1, Telecom 1B
 14   2 Jul 85     1-10  Giotto
 15* 12 Sep 85     3-05  Spacenet 3, ECS-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 16  22 Feb 86     1-11  Spot 1, Viking
 17  28 Mar 86     3-06  GStar 2, Brasilsat S2
 18* 31 May 86     2-01  Intelsat V-F14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19  16 Sep 87     3-07  Aussat K3, ECS-4
 20  21 Nov 87     2-02  TV-Sat 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 21  11 Mar 88     3-08  Spacenet 3R/Geostar R01, Telecom 1C
 23  17 May 88     2-03  Intelsat V-F13
 22  15 Jun 88  44LP-01  Meteosat P2, PanAmSat 1, Amsat 3C
 24  21 Jul 88     3-09  ECS-5, Insat 1C
 25   8 Sep 88     3-10  GStar 3/Geostar R02, SBS-5
 26  28 Oct 88     2-04  TDF-1
 27  11 Dec 88  44LP-02  Skynet 4B, Astra 1A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 28  27 Jan 89     2-05  Intelsat V-F15
 29   6 Mar 89  44LP-03  JC Sat-1, MOP-1 (Meteosat 4)
 30   2 Apr 89     2-06  Tele-X
 31   5 Jun 89   44L-01  Superbird 1, DFS-1
 32  12 Jul 89     3-11  Olympus
 33   8 Aug 89  44LP-04  TV-Sat 2, Hipparcos
 34  27 Oct 89   44L-02  Intelsat VI-F2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 35  22 Jan 90    40-01  Spot 2, Uosat 2/3, Pacsat, Dove, Webersat, Lusat
 36* 22 Feb 90   44L-03  Superbird B, BS-2X
 37  24 Jul 90   44L-04  TDF-2, DFS-2
 38  30 Aug 90  44LP-05  Eutelsat II-F1, Skynet 4C
 39  12 Oct 90   44L-05  SBS-6, Galaxy 6
 40  20 Nov 90   42P-01  Satcom C1, GStar 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 41  15 Jan 91   44L-06  Eutelsat II-F2, Italsat 1
 42   2 Mar 91  44LP-06  Astra 1B, MOP-2
 43   4 Apr 91   44P-01  Anik E2
 44  17 Jul 91    40-02  ERS-1, Datasat X, Tubsat, Uosat F, SARA
 45  14 Aug 91   44L-07  Intelsat VI-F5
 46  26 Sep 91   44P-02  Anik E1
 47  29 Oct 91   44L-08  Intelsat VI-F1
 48  16 Dec 91   44L-09  Telecom 2A, Inmarsat II-F3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Launch failure

                  ARIANE LAUNCH RECORD (V49 to V55)

 V      Date    Vehicle  Payload
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 49  27 Feb 92   44L-10  Superbird-B1, Arabsat-1C
 50  15 Apr 92   44L-11  Telecom 2B, Inmarsat II-F4
 51   9 Jul 92   44L-12  Eutelsat II-F4, Insat 2A
 52  10 Aug 92   42P-02  Topex-Poseidon, Kitsat-A, S80/T
 53  10 Sep 92  44LP-07  Hispasat 1A, Satcom C4
 54  28 Oct 92   42P-03  Galaxy VII
 55   1 Dec 92   42P-04  Superbird A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 22:50:15 GMT
From: "Patricia C. Vener-Saavedra" <[e-mail]>
Subject: averting doom
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

Hi there. As I recall, in about a billion years the sun will have
about twice the luminosity it presently has. The average surface of
Earth will be about 100 degrees C. Some lakes and rivers will have
begun to boil. It will not be pleasant for homo sapiens.:-)

PCVS


--
*********************************************************************
[e-mail]   | "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn this way."
                  |       -- Jessica Rabbit
*********************************************************************

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

Date: 13 Jan 1993 23:06:53 GMT
From: Nobody of Importance <[e-mail]>
Subject: averting doom
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patricia C. Vener-Saavedra) writes:
]Hi there. As I recall, in about a billion years the sun will have
]about twice the luminosity it presently has. The average surface of
]Earth will be about 100 degrees C. Some lakes and rivers will have
]begun to boil. It will not be pleasant for homo sapiens.:-)

Who cares? By that time homo sapiens will be either:

               a)extinct
            or b)spread amongst the stars
            OR c)fireproof ;)

]PCVS

Hit 'n' now to avoid an obnoxious sig thingie.

Subject: Patrick Chester            |Words to live by:
Age: NOYB                           |"Military action is important to the
Address: A place                    |nation--it is the ground of death and
Email:[e-mail]    |life, the path of survival and destruction
Political Views: Somewhere in orbit |so it is important to examine it."
Blackmarks: Politically Incorrect   |Famous Last Words:
(hobbies)   Anime Otaku/Trekker     |--If you cut me down, I will only become
            Technophile             |more powerful...
            Netrekker (claypigeon)  |--Shhh!! There it is again....
Recommendation: Ignore              |--Use the bazooka to open the door...
   (not worth shoot-on-sight orders)|--I cut the red wire...
--
<***** INSERT LAWSUIT DEFLECTION TEXT*****>

I speak (type actually) for myself only. Even if I did decide to
speak for UT, no one would listen.

Flame away, I don't bleedin' care...

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 23:51:34 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <bern.726963746@kleopatra> [e-mail] (Jochen Bern) writes:
>>BTW, does anyone have the text of the toilet instructions on _2001_? ...
>
>... The REALLY funny Thing about it is that the 2001
>Starship had artificial Gravity in at least a Part of the Ship; Every
>Idiot would have chosen to put into that Area.

(a) There was no starship in 2001.

(b) The toilet (and instructions) were in the Earth-Moon shuttle, not
    the Discovery.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 22:22:26 GMT
From: Jochen Bern <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ethan Dicks) writes:
>BTW, does anyone have the text of the toilet instructions on _2001_?  I
>recall that a still was reproduced in the book of the movie.

It has been somewhere in a XYZmovieABC FAQ List. I didn't read it carefully
since the List stated that it was the one and only intended Joke in the
Movie, it was giving Advices on how to use a Dozen Levers and Switches
to wash your Hands. The REALLY funny Thing about it is that the 2001
Starship had artificial Gravity in at least a Part of the Ship; Every
Idiot would have chosen to put into that Area.

Hope that helps,
                                J. Bern
--
 /  \  I hate NN rejecting .sigs >4 lines. Even though *I* set up this one. /\
/ J. \ EMail: bern@[TI.]Uni-Trier.DE / ham: DD0KZ  / More Infos on me from /  \
\Bern/ X.400 Mail: S=BERN;P=Uni-Trier;A=dbp;C=de  /   X.400 Directory, see \  /
 \  /  Zurmaiener Str. 98-100, D-W-5500 Trier    /     X.29 # 45050230303.  \/

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 16:28:06 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Testing
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>As promised, here is some data on the DC-X test program. About nine
>test flights are planned.
>
>1. Flight series 1 will test:
>  * Blended control (automatic flight with ground override)
>  * Vertical landing and ground effects
>  * Systems performance
>  * Qmax: ~10 PSF
>  * Altitude: ~600 feet AGL
>
>2. Series 2:
>  * Aero performance verification
>    - Power-On drag
>  * Expand performance envelope
>  * RTLS demonstration
>  * Qmax: ~60 PSF
>  * Altitude: ~5,000 feet AGL
>
>3. Series 3:
>  * Rotation maneuver to validate aero model
>  * Increasing Q at rotation
>  * Reacquisition of GPS
>  * Propelland management
>  * Qrot: ~20-95 PSF
>  * Altitude: 20,000 feet AGL
>

There are four ways they are looking at to do the rotation form
nose-first to tail first.  They are: diving for momentum then using
the "flaps" to pull up to vertical, then catch it with the engines
(this was referred to as the "death swoop"),  taking it to a point when
the natural "bottom heaviness" of the DC rotates it, and catching it
with the engines, using the engines to drive it around (with flap and

RCS help I would guess), and finally, a drogue chute.  All are in
the current plans for DC-X testing.

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

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 21:14:29 GMT
From: Robert Hearn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(David Hinz ([e-mail])) wrote:
>
>
> A co-worker of mine brought up an interesting question about the
> service problems such as we are seeing with Galileo.  How feasable
> would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs,
> articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite?
>
> This could be done with, perhaps, a variety of tooling, an articulated arm,
> and a track around the device so it could reach wherever it needs to go,
> such as, for instance, a stuck antenna rib.
>
> Obviously, this would have a bit of weight to it, but I would think the cost
> would be fairly reasonable compared to lost productivity & usability.  If
> you could just work the remote manipulator and fix the problem, that would
> beat weeks/months of hammering or whatever.
>
> What besides weight & cost would prohibit this?  How much use would something
> like this get, and would it be worth it?
>
> --
>
> Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.

Or maybe a little repair robot that can wander around to wherever it's
needed.
Give it magnetic feet or something to grip onto everywhere.
Make it small and cheap; send two or three along.  Technology should be
there
for something like this, at a minimal cost.
Of course, if there's a design problem in the robotic arm / repair robot
that doesn't manifest itself until it's in space, you're SOL anyway, even
with spares...

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 21:49:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Hinz ([e-mail])) writes:
>... How feasable
>would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs,
>articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite?

Not very.  Apart from it being heavy and complicated -- for one thing,
it needs to be *long* to reach things that are out on booms -- and useless
in fixing most of the likely malfunctions, it is well beyond the state of
the art in space-rated robotic hardware.

Bear in mind that the Galileo malfunction is of a fairly unusual type.
Most failures are subtle things ailing in the innards of the boxes.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 20:29:11 GMT
From: "Don M. Gibson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (David Hinz ([e-mail])) writes:
>
>A co-worker of mine brought up an interesting question about the
>service problems such as we are seeing with Galileo.  How feasable
>would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs,
>articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite?
>
>This could be done with, perhaps, a variety of tooling, an articulated arm,
>and a track around the device so it could reach wherever it needs to go,
>such as, for instance, a stuck antenna rib.
>
>Obviously, this would have a bit of weight to it, but I would think the cost
>would be fairly reasonable compared to lost productivity & usability.  If
>you could just work the remote manipulator and fix the problem, that would
>beat weeks/months of hammering or whatever.
>
>What besides weight & cost would prohibit this?  How much use would something
>like this get, and would it be worth it?
>

a "repair arm" would probably only be able to help with deployment
failures:  antenna (most craft used fixed anyway), lens covers, and
booms.  These failures are very rare.  It would not be of much help
on more common failures like electrical components, actuators, sensors,
and thrusters.  in short, a "repair arm" doesn't help much with providing
a robust design.
   --Don

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 23:26:03 GMT
From: "Robert F. Casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Hinz ([e-mail])) writes:
>
How feasable
>would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs,
>articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite?
>
>This could be done with, perhaps, a variety of tooling, an articulated arm,
>and a track around the device so it could reach wherever it needs to go,
>such as, for instance, a stuck antenna rib.

Probably easier and better to just do a better antenna deployment design,
maybe with a reversable motor and/or a motor with more strength.  Or
maybe just more "grease" on the thing that holds the ribs.  Or a backup
deployment system, like explosive bolts or something?

And do a more robust design on anything else mechanical that might
get stuck.

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 12:04:22 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gas Guns at MAKING ORBIT (was Re: Railgun in Southwest US)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Chris Johnson <[e-mail]> writes:
> There's a good article (replete with pictures) in the August 10, 1992
> issue of Aviation Week entitled "World's Largest Light Gas Gun Nears
> Completion at Livermore." In addition, that article refers to another
> article on the same subject in their July 23, 1990 issue.
>
> Evidently, it's a two stage light gas gun, 425 ft. long, built by
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for $4 million over the last
> three years.

I note that you can meet the boss of this project (as well as other
interesting characters) by attending the "Making Orbit" conference.
See today's posting by Stewart Cobb.

Bill Higgins                           | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet:  [e-mail]       |     YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
                                       |   *compulsory*.

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 21:21:55 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: How much? (was Re: Moon Dust Sold)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> 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.
>
>I looked at earlier postings, but couldn't find how many grams of Moon
>dust are in the sample.  Anybody know?

The weight was never specified, and it would be hard to determine since the
Moon dust is on 2 inch piece of tape.  I have a photo of it, and just by
eyeballing it I'd say there is less than a gram there.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 13 Jan 93 11:59:44 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: How much? (was Re: Moon Dust Sold)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>>I looked at earlier postings, but couldn't find how many grams of Moon
>>dust are in the sample.  Anybody know?
>
> The weight was never specified, and it would be hard to determine since the
> Moon dust is on 2 inch piece of tape.  I have a photo of it, and just by
> eyeballing it I'd say there is less than a gram there.

Okay, then, assuming it's 1 gram, it cost $46,750,000 per kilogram, or
$21,201,814.06 per pound.  Almost as much as the cost of launching it
on the Shuttle (just kidding, don't want to start another flame!).

I can't find the article with results of the

(cost of Apollo)/(mass of rocks returned)

calculation. How does this compare?  I would guess it gives somewhere
around $80M/lb.

Of course, the rarity of privately owned lunar samples must drive up
the market price a bit....

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

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 22:47:27 GMT
From: Ken Sheppardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Graduate Student Summer Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

  Regarding NASA contacts for info on the GSRP program,

  I'm not sure what number you're calling, but I do seem to remember seeing
  some GSRP info that gives a contact in Code S at NASA HQ. Most, if not
  all, of Code S has moved over to the new HQ building and have new
numbers.
  I believe the HQ operator is [phone]. They should be able to
direct
  your call to the proper person.

---
Ken Sheppardson
[e-mail]
Space Station Advanced Programs                          Phone: (804)
864-7544
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton  VA                Fax:   (804)
864-1975

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 20:13:46 GMT
From: rabjab <[e-mail]>
Subject: needed: a real live space helmet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) writes:

>About the space cadet academy.  Get into the USAFA, spend four years for your
>half-track, spend two more going through high performance flight training, four
>more proving you're one of the best, two to four years at Edwards and maybe
>you'll be an astronaut.  But more than likely, you'll get a street named for
>you at some air base.

Posthumously? :-(.

-rabjab

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

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 00:57:14 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle safety margins

This is in part a reply to a comment by Pat several weeks ago. Pat was
concerned by mechanical safety margins, and felt that the Shuttle operates
within 5% of destruction for its major mechanical and structural systems.
It's difficult to find anything authoritative on this subject, but there
was mention of one safety factor in the STS-54 post-flight press conference
Wednesday morning.

It turns out that with the measured wind patterns, if one of the SSMEs had
failed (it didn't) right when the Shuttle was passing Mach 1.55, three of
the struts in the structure would have had a safety factor of 1.36 (36%),
while the target safety factor under those conditions is a minimum of
1.4 (40%). Analysis of the situation and of the particular orbiter indicated
that this safety factor was acceptable, so permission was granted to proceed
with the launch.

It should be noted that under normal flight conditions (all three engines
working, which was the case) the safety factor would be greater.

One of the questions during the press conference was "what if something
additional had happened, and the stress was increased another 36%, so that
zero safety margin was passed?". The spokesman (Brewster Shaw, Deputy
Director of the Space Shuttle Program) replied that the safety margin
stated is not to the point of destruction - you'd get local yielding,
and the load would be redistributed to the surrounding members. (Of course,
orbiter repairs would be needed afterward.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jan 93 21:43:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supporting private space activities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc G Fournier) writes:
>I'm confused.  Is the US the only country that has the 'environment' to
>set up a launch site?  My understanding about why it is all done from Florida
>is that it has to do with weather and easy of escaping Earth's atmosphere (lower
>gravity?)

You want to be as close to the equator as possible to take maximum advantage
of Earth's spin.  If you're launching rockets that fall apart (e.g. they
have multiple stages), you want to have lots of water downrange.  Those were
the only really technical reasons for Florida (the weather is lousy).

There's no fundamental problem with putting a launch site elsewhere --
the Aussies are trying to do one at Cape York -- but the US is the single
biggest customer and is a prime supplier of bits and pieces even for
other people's hardware.  The US is also just about the only country
that has a large space industry which is not completely a creature of
the government.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 046
------------------------------