Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO627.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 05:07:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #627
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 26 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 627

Today's Topics:
                   Carl Sagan, respected astronomer
                  Detecting planets in other system
                  Help! Looking for Tamara Thompson
        Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (7 msgs)
               Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
                Liberal President murders spaceflight?
                   mass return (was Re: Hey Sherz!)
                              Moon Base
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
         Question about B&W markings on US launchers (3 msgs)
                           salvage in space

    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, 25 May 1993 16:44:04 GMT
From: Ed Faught <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>BTW, he isn't an astronomer.  He's
>an astro-biologist.  At least, that's what his degree is in.

Isn't Story Musgrave in this field? Does he have more than one doctorate?
--
[e-mail]                  WA9WDM
     wouldn't dare to speak for the
Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 17:58:02 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

One scheme I haven't seen mentioned here is occultation.  That is, interpose
an opaque object between the star and the telescope, so that the star is
covered but the planet is not.

The limit here is set by diffraction around the edge of the occluder.
The angular separtion that can be achieved by a shade at distance D is
proportional to (lambda/D)^{1/2}, where lambda is the wavelength of
the light being detected.  The shade must be at least on the order of
(lambda D)^{1/2} in diameter (throw in a term of O(1) to these).

For lambda = 1 micron, D = 1000 km, this gives on the order of .2 arc
sec and 1 meter, respectively.  There is also a lower limit set by the
aperture size of the telescope (to collect enough photons to see the
planet).  Keeping the telescope and shade aligned for sufficiently long
would be challenging.  One might want to use a larger shade at a greater
distance, or allow a shade with alternating transparent/opaque sections
to drift across the star.

    Paul

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

Date: 25 May 1993 12:32:47 -0500
From: Bill Jefferys <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help! Looking for Tamara Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I am trying to contact Tamara Thompson, a former student
in the Astronomy Department of the University of Texas.
If you know where she is (or are her!) please contact me
by E-mail: [e-mail].

Many thanks.

Bill Jefferys

--
If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file
    --Robert Firth

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 16:06:01 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Pat, you and others convienently forget recovery of several multimillion
>dollar satillites, repair of solar max, hubble space telescope ops,

Except for Hubble, which isn't out of the woods yet, each mission
to retrieve a satellite has cost more than the cost of building
and launching a satellite.

And given the financial overkill we pour into the shuttle program,
it would probably be cheaper to build another Hubble. Or to simply
write off the Hubble program entirely and build 2.5 more Keck
Interferometers. (Which could be done for the cost of fixing
Hubble).

BTW, you never answered my last post, with the _list_ of why
Space Scuttle isn't the end-all and be-all of US technology;
I even mailed a copy to you.

Is your silence embarrasment? Guilt? Or willful ignorance?

The "pretend all positions contrary to my own don't exist"
tactic?

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the "real" Ken, or just someone
"borrowing" his account for McElwaine-type hit-and-run posts...

>Leasesat, palapa, and westar, most of all having intelsat snub shuttle for
>deployment of their satillite and then coming back to the US gov't to
>request a mission to rescue their spacecraft. (I'd say this is a pretty
>stellar record of space operations.)

I'm not sure whether Intelsat could be said to have "snubbed"
shuttle when it was launched after all commercial payloads were
snubbed from the shuttle after Challenger.

>Mass returned is important, while not all of these missions involved
>mass returned from orbit, several did.  Other missions included options

>to return the vehicles to earth for later launch.

>ken

"Ken," it isn't important if it takes more money to return something
than it does to build another one and launch it. Sorry.
--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 16:12:24 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
...
>>Let me get this straight.  You're a doctor criticizing engineers over
>>their objectivity when looking at the engineering of various vehicles?

>NO!
>I am a doctor who is criticizing some of your *lack* of objectivity.
>Hence your desire to delete the mass of the orbiter from the calculation
>of the total mass delivered to orbit by the STS.

But you have an astounding lack of objectivity in claiming that the
mass of the orbiter is important; especially since on orbit, the mass
of the wings/other aerostructure and SSME's is DEAD WEIGHT.

Less useful than a carton of rotten peaches.

>>understand the technical difficulty or degree of complexity of
>>developing a new medical treatment, yet here you are, a doctor telling
>>engineers that you understand their field better than they do.

>I'm not aware that Pat is an engineer.  I apparently am more realistic
>than you are about spaceflight.  I think some of you excessive shuttle
>critics are overly enthusiastic about delta clipper.  In addition,
>I really object to attempts to compare Delta Clipper and shuttle.
>DC is not (to my knowledge) useful in the station program or in
>medical applications.  I think only shuttle can fulfill the requirements
>for medical studies on orbit.

1. I disliked the Shuttle long before DC came along mainly because
shuttle is eating all the money available for something else to come
along.

2. DC is useful for station resupply. Much more useful than shuttle.
Look up Allen's posts of a while back talking about the shuttle overruns
being charged to the Station program, to the point of putting the Station
program itself in severe jeopardy.
...
>overly simplistic and don't address several issues which have already
>been raised by others on this net.

>I seem to recall one post which went unanswered dealing with the
>landing mode of the vehicle.  I.E. how does a pilot or computer
>land the thing?

Sorta both; many modern military aircraft are so dynamically unstable
that if the computer breaks, you should bail out immediately.

What they're trying to do with DC, which is _very_ important, is to
_experiment_. Try to find out what's wrong with the vehicle.

They're trying a different mode of engineering than "spend billions on
design and then pretend we have a perfect system; damn the O-rings,
full thrust!"

I mean, if DC-X gets blown to pieces tomorrow, what have we lost?
Half a shuttle toilet. If it works, we've advanced the state of the
art considerably.

You've been listening half-way to Scuttle propaganda, where they say
that it's the greatest thing in the Universe out of one side of their
mouth, and that it's horrendously expensive out the other, that you
think that everything must be horrendously expensive.

I'll bet you actually think aspirin costs $ 10.00 a dose, just like on
all the hospital bills, too.

Later, "Ken."
--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:39:15 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|(And before anyone points out that it is far cheaper in most cases to launch
|a replacement than to fund a shuttle flight to fix it: yes, but that's not the
|point here.  We're talking about what can be done *assuming* you are going to
>fix the thing in the first place.)

That's like arguing about the value of repairing a 55 corvette.

And then claiming what a good car it is.

I measure a car not only by it's performance,  but by it's cost.

I have a watch,  that my dad gace me.  It's the last thing he
ever gave me.  I'll not crib about the jewelers bill,  but
I don't claim that to be the way to handle watches for everyone
else, or forever.

Satellitte repair has been a useful lesson to EVA,  but
it has been enormously expensive.  Harvard is a good school
but everyone looks at the tuition bill.

pat

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:50:11 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>Ken seems fixated on this measure of performance.
|>I would suggest that we not look at mass returned,  but Useful
|>Cargo Returned.
|>In that Case we have,  1 LDEF,  4-5 SpaceLab flights,  and probably
|>appx 100 GAS Cans.
>>Not a lot for 12 years of missions.  The soviets probably have
>>returned as much using capsula  vehicles and with soyuz.


Nobody gunned down my thumb sketch.

Ken,
Justify the STS program on the basis of mass returned.

pat.

Don't include contingency satellitte return missions.  It would have
been cheaper to build new ones  and pop them off.

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:56:07 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ttlk3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>|(And before anyone points out that it is far cheaper in most cases to launch
>|a replacement than to fund a shuttle flight to fix it: yes, but that's not the
>|point here.  We're talking about what can be done *assuming* you are going to
>>fix the thing in the first place.)

>That's like arguing about the value of repairing a 55 corvette.

>And then claiming what a good car it is.

>I measure a car not only by it's performance,  but by it's cost.

Now I understand why Fred gets so exasperated with you.

To express what I said in the paragraph you quoted in another way, yes, I
agree that it is usually cheaper to launch a new satellite than it is to
fund a repair mission.  However, if for *whatever* reason you *do* want to
fix something in orbit, whether it is because you don't have the time to
launch a new one, because it is a one-of-a-kind satellite than cannot easily
be replaced, or you just want a PR stunt, then the Shuttle has a capsule
beat in just about every functional (not finanical, functional) way there is.
That is the only point I am addressing.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:38:10 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>repair of solar max,
>
>don't remember what else went up on that flight so it may have been valid.

LDEF deployment was the other job on that flight.

>>Leasesat,
>
>This one never flew. Shuttle proved too unreliable to attract paying
>customers.

I think he was referring to the Leasat, aka Syncom, repair mission.
You're thinking of Leasecraft, which indeed never flew.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:55:22 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>Why do you assume these things require the shuttle?  The most elaborate
>>in-space repair/salvage operations yet done -- Salyut 7 and Skylab --
>>did not use the shuttle.
>
>For shame.  Docking with a controlled space station with autonomous life
>support capabilities and tinkering with it is in no way comparable to working
>on a free-flying satellite that is in no way cooperating with you...

Uh, Matthew, you may not be aware of it, but Salyut 7 was dead in the water
when they went up to repair it.  No life support.  No docking assistance.
No attitude control, even.  No cooperation of any kind except the presence
of a docking port.

>99.99% of the
>hardware up there that we could conceivably want to service can be done
>far more easily and effectively from the shuttle.

This is vacuously true, since the US doesn't have any alternatives now.
But what does the shuttle really *buy* us for such operations?  An arm
and a few workstands.  You could put that on an Apollo SM easily enough.
In fact, the first phases of the Skylab repair work were done before
docking; they were largely unsuccessful, but not because of the base
they were being done from (the problem was that the solar array was
stuck a lot harder than people had thought).
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 May 93 19:13:19 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>For shame.  Docking with a controlled space station with autonomous life
>>support capabilities and tinkering with it is in no way comparable to working
>>on a free-flying satellite that is in no way cooperating with you...

>Uh, Matthew, you may not be aware of it, but Salyut 7 was dead in the water
>when they went up to repair it.  No life support.  No docking assistance.
>No attitude control, even.  No cooperation of any kind except the presence
>of a docking port.

I should have said 'stable', instead of 'controlled', but 95% of the problems
of space repair were solved by the fact that it was a space station as opposed
to an unmanned satellite.  The existence of the docking port was half the
fight.  I believe it still had an atmosphere on board, enough to get started
with, and life support capabilities that could be reactivated.

I certainly don't consider it similar to any other repair situation.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:17:09 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|
|    The task force pointed out, however, that the mission is
|complex and will require more EVA (spacewalk) time than any
|mission to date.  Given this complexity, the task force recommended
|that a second HST servicing mission be planned 6 to 12 months after
>the STS-61 flight to handle tasks that might not be completed during
>the first mission or respond to failures that occur in the intervening
>months.

I guess it was not so unreasonable my suggestion that they
scrub the re-boost with discovery,  in favor of carrying
EDO packs, Extra Suits,  the MMU  and any other sort of utility
hardware they can think of.  if the re-boost needs to be done,
look at a fast track  mini tug of some sort.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 17:20:57 GMT
From: dennis womack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>>Let's not forget,  Carter was a nuclear engineer,
>>and seemed a whole lot more realistic  about what could be done
>>as opposed to reagan  who had no idea  what the laws of physics were.
>
>>pat
>
>Funny. Maybe we ought to shoot all the nuclear engineers and
>find more people ignorant of physics. Then we might get some
>research into advanced propulsion done.
>

My response:

Carter's "Nuclear Engineering" training consisted of the Navy's six month school:  he had NO formal degree.  Carter calling himself a Nuclear Engineer is a travestry.  All Carter managed to do was let the US lose its stranglehold over enriched uranium, cancel the breeder (which never made it back) therby giving France the leadership role, and stiffle fusion research. We also got the uneconomical once through fule cycle from Carter.  It turns out that he is a better carpenter than engineer (or businessman).






__________________________________________________________________
[e-mail]      Gig'em        Texas Instruments
 ...people prefer to believe -                          Dallas, TX
           what they prefer to be true... Francis Bacon
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:34:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: mass return (was Re: Hey Sherz!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tpt1o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>I also find it strange that so many shuttle critics would snub
>the issue of mass return while attempting to tout the
>importance of space commercialization...

We snub it because mass return is of little importance at present, and
easily achieved (on the scale necessary) using pre-shuttle technology.
The most promising recent development for commercial experiments in space
is COMET, which is using ballistic-capsule technology for its mass return.

>Shuttle critics choose to downplay and underestimate the
>importance and difficulty in the historic missions which the
>orbiter has flown to service and recover multi-million dollar
>satillites.

We downplay it because servicing and recovering multi-million dollar
satellites at a cost of *hundreds of millions* of dollars makes no
financial sense.  It can be justified only as experimental work; it
will not be practically useful until better transportation systems
are available.

>While some may argue the economics of these
>achievements, they usually choose to ignore the difficulty in
>flying these missions...

Who *cares* about the difficulty?!?  Unless your purpose is a high-tech
welfare program, what matters is results, not effort.  "Work smart,
not hard".

>Mr. Spencer, if you would like to start publishing your own
>calculations supporting your views of the shuttle program,
>I'd enjoy reading them...

I really don't see why elaborate calculations are necessary.  Simple
calculation of payload cost per kilogram tells you that the shuttle is
not a competitive transport system, especially if you compare to low-cost
operators like Russia and China.  As a manned laboratory facility, it is
inferior to permanent facilities like Mir; virtually every experiment
flown on Spacelab, for example, would benefit from longer time in space.
As a servicing platform, it does nothing that Apollo technology could
not do.  Where's the benefit?

The shuttle was a sensible experiment.  It failed.  It's time to admit
that and start learning from our mistakes.

>... tout the DC-Y's performance.  Please start
>to publish the vehicleUs developmental cost, payload to
>orbit, recovery time and cost, cost of manufacturing the
>vehicle, if anyone really knows.  If any of these are
>unknown, are you really that different than those who
>erroneously believed the shuttles would fly once per week?

Nobody can put firm numbers on costs for DC-Y yet.  However, note that
DC-X development went quickly and smoothly, at cost far lower than the
estimated cost of mounting a similar project under NASA or the USAF.

The development process proposed for DC-Y is sufficiently different
from that of the shuttle that it is reasonable to suggest that it will
work better; in particular, the shuttle's mistakes are now understood.
In particular, you cannot expect rapid turnaround from a launcher whose
development process makes no attempt to design for it!

If we refuse to believe that the US can ever again develop a launcher
that meets its specifications, it's time for the US to drop launcher
development entirely and stick to fields where it retains some competence.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:24:53 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>I think a 'test flight' to the moon would be a good idea to flight qualify
>the Mars hardware.


Zubrin has a proposal called lunar direct= to test out the
Mars direct gear, in space and in a partial environment.
Also to establish at least some science bases on the far side.

Now any changes to the hardware for Mars, and some guy from TI
will start arguing that it's a whole new bird and utterly
unknown or trustable.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:11:30 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ben Delisle 02/15/93) writes:
>>    Killing an ET would be legal as current law only states people,
>>persons, men, women, children. An ET; however, is not classified or
>>mentioned. They could be considered as animals (possibility plants) as they
>>are non-human lifeforms and may be subject to animal protection laws, but
>>not the same protection as humans.
>>    Knowing the general human attitude to other people(s) and
>>even animals and their past behaviour, any contact with ET's will
>>probably end up with us exploiting the ET's irreguardless of any
>>technological advantage on their part. New levels of discrimination
>>will be seen.
>
>What about going off the deep end away from government law and into
>customary law?
>
>For instance: try shooting at a dolphin in my presence if _I_ have
>a firearm too... or probably most people in the United States...
>

"Boys, Joe didn't do nothin' illegal here.  I do hear tell that them Alpha
Centoorians are gonna kill every fourth man woman and child unless we show them
how bad we feel about it.  Okay, Joe, you're free to go."

Get the picture? ;-)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |Compressed air is a drug, and I need a fix
[e-mail]          |
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: 25 May 1993 13:46:35 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

 I would guess, that in the early days when telemtry was
expensive, and sensors not so reliable,  a good strong
visual pattern allowed film analysis of vehicle roll rates,
.  Not these were all vintage  boosters.  Newer
vehicles don't seem to have this.

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

Date: 25 May 1993 17:59:17 GMT
From: "C. D. Tavares" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, soc1070                          writes:

> This is a forward from sci.space I thought someone here would know (Peter
> maybe?). Anyway, include sci.space in replys..

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Parsons) writes...

> >Why do several US launchers (especially early ones like Redstone, Titan
> >and Saturn) have strong black and white stripe markings?

> >Are they for recognition from a distance or something more involved
> >like thermal control?

They don't call them "roll patterns" for nothing!   :-)

In the days of primitive telemetry, you could record the flight performance
parameters of a rocket on film and analyze it later.  The stripes served
the same function on rockets that the crosshairs do on crash dummies.

> >As far as I'm aware, Russian and European launchers do not have, and have
> >never had, such markings. Why not?

Well, yes and no.  The V-2 (A-4) was indeed flown with such markings, but
mostly out of White Sands, after the war.  Before the end of the war, it
seems the Germans were understandably reluctant to improve the V-2's
visibility..!
--

[e-mail]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [e-mail]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:34:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,sci.space

In article <1ttmpl$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C. D. Tavares) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, soc1070                          writes:
>
>> This is a forward from sci.space I thought someone here would know (Peter
>> maybe?). Anyway, include sci.space in replys..
>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Parsons) writes...
>
>> >Why do several US launchers (especially early ones like Redstone, Titan
>> >and Saturn) have strong black and white stripe markings?
>
>> >Are they for recognition from a distance or something more involved
>> >like thermal control?
>
>They don't call them "roll patterns" for nothing!   :-)
>
>In the days of primitive telemetry, you could record the flight performance
>parameters of a rocket on film and analyze it later.  The stripes served
>the same function on rockets that the crosshairs do on crash dummies.
>
>> >As far as I'm aware, Russian and European launchers do not have, and have
>> >never had, such markings. Why not?
>
>Well, yes and no.  The V-2 (A-4) was indeed flown with such markings, but
>mostly out of White Sands, after the war.  Before the end of the war, it
>seems the Germans were understandably reluctant to improve the V-2's
>visibility..!

Early test A-4s from the Germans also had roll patterns, yellow & black
quadrants. I have footage of it blowing up.. :) I believe these were just
test vehicles, though. Not to fly into enemy territory.

Both Soviet and British captured A-4s that were flown after the war had
roll patterns as well.

--
Tim Harincar
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:28:00 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: salvage in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>|> >Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
>>>|> >abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?
>
>>>|> As I recall, space law differs from sea law in this area...
>>>|> ...it will probably end up being changed...
>
>>>I wouldn't want anyone salvaging my comsat or trying to classify my
>>>mothballed construction shack as a derelict. How do we distinguish?
>
>>The problem is not new.  Real-life salvage operators don't want to be
>>charged with theft, so they want to see either (a) a clear contract
>>with the legitimate owners, or (b) strong evidence that the object in
>>question has been abandoned.
>
>The second wouldn't be enough: Under international law (I think the
>treaty the US didn't ratify, so international law outside of the
>US) abandoned orbital objects remain the property of the nation
>which originally launched it forever. As an absurd flaw in the
>treaty's wording, this also applies to orbital debris...
>
>>Your comsat becomes salvage when you file an insurance claim for its
>>loss.
>
>I think it actually becomes the property of the insurance company
>at that point...

Following Admiralty Law as an example (since it is the closest the US now has
to a space salvage law), the bird would be owned by the insurance company.
However (very nasty), the insurance company is responsible for the actions of
the bird, or its debris cloud. (see SS Central America and MV Little Denmark
for US Admiralty Court rulings and subsequent appeals).

How this would apply to satellites I don't know, expecially since the US is not
signatory to any treaties.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |Compressed air is a drug, and I need a fix
[e-mail]          |
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 627
------------------------------