Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO929.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 34KB | 709 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 28 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 929

Today's Topics:
                               Catapult
                             Cold Fusion
Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (3 msgs)
                                 DC-X
               Found your own dark-sky nation? (3 msgs)
            Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed (2 msgs)
                       Hackers Ethic in Space!
          Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions)
        Shuttle Computers/Software: Redundancy! Crosschecking!
Soviet manned spacecraft accidents [was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems]
                  SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
                         Test Stands at MSFC

    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, 27 Jul 1993 13:04:08 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Catapult
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>[e-mail] (Darth Vader) writes:

>> I was wondering if anyone out there ever thought about what it would take to
>> build a Heinlein style catapult.  What would it cost?  Would any private
>> corporation be able to fund such a project?  Is it technologically possible
>> at the present?  Just speculating absently...

>Technologically, I think it is possible. The technology is similar to that
>used in particle accellerators and some monorails. Of course, this would be
>one whale of a train. :-)

The calculations for an E-M catapult are easy. From memory the energy
needed to send 1 tonne into escape from the surface of the Earth
(neglecting air resistance! actually about 10% for a long thin thing
like a utlity pole) is 22 MW-Hrs. For a launcher 3 kms long (memory!)
that needs dischargin in about 3.5 seconds. Working backwords we need
2.5 million automobile batteries spread out along the track. (Fort
Elgin uses 50,000 batteries to test rail guns). No Sweat.
I repeat I am quoting from memory so my figures are very approx.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 17:59:07 GMT
From: Andreas Schulz OT133 <ernohb!aschulz>
Subject: Cold Fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

As my old physics professor used to say :

Superconductivity at room temperature is surely possible...
.. just make the room cool enough.

(The transfer to cold fusion is left as an excercise to the reader)

:-)))      sorry, couldn't resist (and didn't want to post boring
                                   'ignore this one's')   Andreas

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 07:54:49 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space


If Henry corrects Henry,  Who'se wrong?



You are.  Henry is always right,  it's your perception that's wrong.:-)
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 13:56:55 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India

> Realize,  that even though your friends work at lewis,
> the US military Industrial complex  has a strong belief that
> only Americans  have the grace from god  to ever come up with an
idea.
>

>

Probably closer to the truth in another way. I once wrote a letter to
Foreign Affairs (which was not printed: they stopped printing letters
just about the time they rcvd mine) on the MTCR. My thesis is that
whereas one can make the argument that most nations would be better
off without NBC weaponry, this argument breaks down entirely on
rockets. Rockets are the entry into space and one of the most
important economic realms of the next century. Any government that
allows the USA to bully it out of that market is cutting it's people
out of the future.

I simply don't see how any nation (or preferably private entities
within it) can allow this to happen. It would be like joining an ATCR
(hint: aircraft) in 1910.

Will the existance of 120 indigenous spacefaring nations mean there
is a threat to the USA? Certainly. Just as the existance of 120
airfaring nations means there is a threat to the US. The appropriate
means of handling the threat is what the BMDO exists for.

It is part and parcel of the current american "safety madness" as
seen in such things as the destruction of General Aviation; the death
of innovation in birth control; the massive medical costs for
malpractice defensive medicine; and on and on. This mindset acts out
its neurosis by defending against minor threat within a potential
great good by outlawing the great good.

I don't give the MTCR a Guinness' on a desert island full of
Irishmen's chance of lasting much into the 21st century. It is
inherently economically assinine.

I'm quite happy to see India thumb it's nose at the US policy dweebs.
I hopes lots more countries take up the hobby.


--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 12:52:34 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] writes:

>to kick in some unpredicted failure mode.  Keep in mind that the
>Minuteman solids are probably the oldest still kicking around in
>the world.  When will they "age-out?" How will they age-out?

>Bret

I thought that the Polaris motors for the British Nuclear Submarines
had that dubious honour. They have caused real problems, even it is
roumoured having to de-retire the guys who built them to check and
repair them.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 93 12:26:09 GMT
From: jeff findley <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230l9j$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael C. Jensen) writes:

|> I'd assume though
|> that the DC will be capable of flying sideways with minimal difficulty..
|> (just place the RCS jets in the right places along the body of the ship
|> and it should work out well.. though I'd note I'm curious about how..
|> according to what I've heard, the DC "upper body" will be used as a
|> heat shield for reentry.. like the shuttle's underside.. but the shuttle
|> has no "jet ports" here to worry about.. will the DC have these
|> holes but use retractable "doors" to cover them for reentry? If so, that
|> is a fairly "critical" system, considering you will need a door for every
|> cluster of jets, and each door is a liability in cases of failure..)

How many of these "critical doors" are on the bottom of the Shuttle?  Three to
eight?  I know they have doors over the rather large LH2 and LOX connections
and probabally the ET attach points as well.  Landing gear also needs these
"critical doors".  Seems like we've been there and done that since the days of
the X-15 (way before I was even born).

Perhaps MD has already done the research to put RCS jets on the outside without
"critical doors", since the design is roughly based on maneuverable reentry
vehicle (i.e. nuclear warhead) technology.  Just how maneuverable these things
are is a mystery to me. :-)

Jeff

--
  __   __    __   __  /-------------------------------------------+-----------\
 /  \ |  \  |  \ /  \ |"Have you noticed the way people's         | The above |
 \__  |   | |__/ |    | intelligence capabilities decline sharply | opinions  |
    \ |   | | \  |    | the minute they start waving guns around?"| are mine, |
 \__/ |__/  |  \ \__/ |Dr. Who (Tom Baker in "The Horns of Nimon")| not SDRC. |
[e-mail] \-------------------------------------------+-----------/

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 20:19:06 GMT
From: Tom Glinos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Uhhh. The original post was meant to be tongue in cheek, now you're
>getting serious. I don't think that most astronomers would really
>want a sea level observatory if they had a choice. The seeing would
>be poor too much of the time.

It's not so bad. I understand people at the last Winter Star Party
in Florida were looking at objects at 3000x
--
=================
"Conquest is easy, control is not"    | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
[Star Trek TOS]               | [e-mail]
USL forgot this simple history lesson

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 11:06:02 GMT
From: Andy Clews <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Uhhh. The original post was meant to be tongue in cheek, now you're
: getting serious. I don't think that most astronomers would really
: want a sea level observatory if they had a choice. The seeing would
: be poor too much of the time.

Especially as your 'scope would be underwater at high tide :-)


--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, England
JANET: [e-mail]      OTHER NETWORKS: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:12:34 GMT
From: Frances Teagle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology

The deep, deep dark of an unlit Transylvanian village (Arkos, Brasov
county) is a revelation.  So glad I had my binoculars with me.

       ____     ____
      /__        /  __   __   __   / __
     /          /  /__/ __ / /  / / /__/
    /   o      /  /__  /__/ /__/ / /__       ([e-mail])
                             _/

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 07:55:54 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

ALan

    Please post  the List of members for the HASC.  I don't keep
them, and if i am going to send out thank you bullets,  it would help.
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:18:50 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <23354a$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>    Please post  the List of members for the HASC.  I don't keep
>them, and if i am going to send out thank you bullets,  it would help.

Here you go:


    House Armed Services Committee - Research and Technology Subcommittee

Name                       Address            Phone      FAX
                                              (AC 202)   (AC 202)

Patricia Schroeder (D-CO)  2208 RH  20515     225-4431    225-5842
Bob Stump (R-AZ)            211 CH  20515     225-4576    225-6328
Dave McCurdy (D-OK)        2344 RH  20515     225-6165    225-9746
Jane Harman (D-CA)                            225-8220
Roscoe bartlett (R-MD)                        225-2721    225-2193
Don Johnson (D-GA)                            225-4101
Glen Browder (D-AL)        1630 LH  20515     225-3261    225-9020
Earl Hutto (D-FL)          2435 RH  20515     225-4136    225-5785
George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) 124 CH  20515     225-3826    225-0776
Martin Lancaster (D-NC)                       225-3415    225-0666
James H. Bilbray (D-NV)                       225-5965    225-8808
Chet Edwards (D-TX)                           225-6105    225-0350
Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA)     133 CH  20515     225-5672    225-0235
John R. Kasich (R-OH)      1131 LH  20515     225-5355
James V. Hansen (R-UT)     2466 RH  20515     225-0453    225-5857
Frank Tejeda (D-TX)                           225-1640    225-1641
Martin Meehan (D-MA)                          225-3411
Elizabeth Furse (D-OR)                        225-0855    225-9497
Steve Buyer (R-IN)                            225-5037    225-2267
Peter Torkildsen (R-MA)                       225-8020    225-8037
James Talent (R-MO)                           225-2561    225-2563

Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA)   2136 RH  20515     225-2661    225-9817
Robert K. Dornan (R-CA)    2402 CH  20515     225-2965    225-2075
Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)       2406 RH  20515     225-3271    225-6974
John Tanner (D-TN)                            225-4714    225-1765
Pete Geren (D-TX)                             225-5071    225-2786

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 08:33:00 GMT
From: Philip Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hackers Ethic in Space!
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Taking the Hackers Ethic into space, It cna be an interesting way to get
>around the stuffed shirt, suit attitudes of some in certain organizations..
>...

>Might add:
>
>7. Complex is just bad source code. Make it simpler.

NOOTTTT! :-)

This goes against the "you can make art on a computer" clause!
But you should definitely make it concise, minimal, and clean.
--
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tea: a Noxious brew of various oriental leaves, containing toxic acids.
Personally, I rather like it." (paraprhased from Dr. Who: Peter Davidson)
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:00:12 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions)

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
        (1) the term "outer space" means those portions of the universe more
than 70,000 meters above earth"s mean sea level,  including but not limited to
empty space itself and the surfaces and interiors of celestial bodies;
        (2) the term "unique scientific opportunity" means any opportunity to
engage in a space mission or experiment which will recur less often than once
every five years due to the constraints of celestial mechanics or other
physical laws;
        (3) the terms "unacceptable risk" or "unacceptable risk of loss of a
unique scientific opportunity"  mean a demonstrated record of loss in
operation more than twice as great as that established by the space shuttle or
other commonly used and generally accepted means of space transportation
designed for the intended purpose;
        (4) the term "commercial provider" means any person providing space
related goods or services,  such as space transportation services,  as a for
profit business endeavor;
        (5) the term "space goods" means any item,  product or manufacture
which assists in carrying out space services,  including but not limited to
space transportation vehicles,  payloads,  space vehicles,  space probes,
space stations,  and associated ground support equipment;
        (6) the term "space services" means activities carried out within
outer space or on celestial bodies,  or activities carried out on Earth to
support,  enable or assist such activities contemporaneously or at a future
time,  including but not limited to the transportation of persons or payloads
to,  from or between points in space,  operation of mission control,  mission
planning,  deep space communication,  earth observation or conduct of
experiments at a space station;
        (7) the term "space goods and services" means space goods,  and space
services,  as defined above.
        (8) the term "space transportation services" means transportation of
payloads or people from earth to outer space,  from point to point within
outer space,  including points on other celestial bodies,  or from outer space
to Earth,  or on flights on suborbital rockets;  and the preparation of a
space transportation vehicle and its payloads or passengers for space
transport and the conduct of transporting a payload or pasenger to, from,  or
within outer space;
        (9) the terms "launch vehicle"  or  "space transportation vehicle"
mean any vehicle constructed for the purpose of operating in,  or transporting
a payload or passenger to,  from,  or between points in outer space (e. g. a
sounding rocket),  and includes any component of such vehicle not specifically
designed or adapted for the payload,   i. e. a vehicle intended to provide
space transportation services;
        (10) the term "payload" means anyone or anything that a person
undertakes to transport to,  from,  or within outer space,  and implicitly
includes passengers unless otherwise stated,  but does not include a space
transportation vehicle except for any components which are specifically
designed or adapted for that payload;
        (11) the term "space infrastructure" means all facilities,  capital
equipment,  real property and associated material of high cost and lasting
value used to perform space related activities;
        (12) the term "space launch and launch support facilities" means space
infrastructure used --
        (A) to prepare space transportation vehicles and their payloads for
space transport;  or
        (B) to launch such vehicles;
        (13) the term "space-related activities" includes research,  applied
research,  development,  design,  manufacturing,  processing,  services,
maintenance,  support,  and other activities associated with space goods and
services;
        (14) the term "commercial space station" means any habitable volume
owned and operated by a commercial provider;
        (15) the term "space manufacturing" means any activity carried out in
space which adds value to an item or material through processes or operations
performed on it in outer space;
        (16) the term "space resource utilization" means the production of
useful materials or products from materials naturally available in outer
space;
        (17) the term "United States person" means--
        (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States;
        (B) any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other
entity organized or existing under the laws of the United States or any State,
 Commonwealth,  territory,  or possession of the United States; and
        (C) any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other
entity which is organized or exists under the laws of a foreign nation, if the
controlling interest (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation by
regulation) in such entity is held by any combination of individuals or
entities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection; or
        (D) a foreign company or its subsidiary and the Secretary finds that--
        (i) such company or subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial
commitment to the United States market through--
        (I) investments in the United States in long-term research,  applied
research,  development,  and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major
components and subassemblies); and
        (II) significant contributions to employment in the United States; and
        (ii) the country or countries in which such foreigh company is
incorporated or organized,  and,  if appropriate,  in which it principally
conducts its business,  affords reciprocal treatment to companies described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) to participate in government sponsored research
similar to that authorized under this Act;
        (III) providing no barriers to companies described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) with respect to local investment opportunities that are not
provided to foreign companies in the United States;  and
        (IV) providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual
property rights of companies described in subparagraph (A) and (B);  and
        (18) the term "antitrust laws" has the meaning given it in section
1(a) of the Clayton Act (15 USC 12(a)),  except that such term includes
sections  2 through 6 of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (15 USC
4301 through 4305),  and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commisssion Act to the
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition;
        (19) the terms "research" or "basic research" mean activities directed
at discovering basic new knowledge and fundamental natural laws by careful
study of a specific subject without regard to production of specific items or
fulfilment of  specific mission objectives.  Research is a long term process
of learning and discovery with focus on a general scientific area rather than
a specific technical result.  In general,  research is directed at the
discovery of natural laws and other knowledge which is difficult to protect as
a trade secret,  and which (if innovative) would not be patentable under
existing law.  Research is typically carried out by one to five persons over a
period of  several years.  Applied research,  exploratory development,  and
development are activities related to creating innovations which in general
adhere to the criteria for patentability in existing law,   and reducing these
innovations to practice as described in existing law.
        (20) the term "applied research" means activities directed at
discovering  the detailed procedures and processes to apply basic scientific
discoveries to the production of specific items or to the fulfillment of
specific mission objectives.  Applied research is typically carried out by
three to ten persons over a period of one or more years.
        (21) the term "exploratory development" means  activities directed at
applying known and well understood procedures,  processes,  mechanisms and
technologies to see if  specific items can be produced or specific mission
objectives fulfilled through their application or combination with other
processes,  procedures,  mechanisms and technologies.
        (22) the term "development" means the process of conceptualizing,
designing,  prototyping and verifying performance of specific items to meet
particular mission requirements,  and includes the reduction to practice of a
particular manufacturing protocol.  Development includes engineering design
efforts directed at modification,  support and improvement of items to be
produced or currently in production,  as well as engineering to modify or
improve currently fielded equipment.
        (23) the term "production" means serial manufacture or modification of
components without the need for substantial design changes or engineering
support.  The production process follows from development,  and each item is
in production until it is finally deployed.
        (24) the term "maintenance" means the routine service and repair of
existing deployed equipment and facilities which does not involve engineering
modification to improve performance or capability.
        (25) the term "operation" means the utilization or management of goods
and services for the purposes for which the goods and services were designed.
        (26) the term "milestone" means an incremental test of developing
capabilities in a realisic environment.  It typically consists of a date by
which certain performance must have been demostrated without exceeding a set
cost ceiling.
        (27) the term "eligible person" in the context of title IX of this Act
means any for profit business entity owned and controlled by United States
persons,  or any natural person who is entitled to work in the United States
through being a citizen,  national,  or through appropriate immigration
status.
        (28) the term "military activities" shall mean any activities
involving military personnel or Department of Defense contractors or employees
or contractors of the Department of Energy who work on programs or at
facilities substantially involved in nuclear weapons related research,
development,  production or maintenance.
        (29) the term "military personnel" shall mean members of the armed
services,  civil servants in the employ of the Department of Defense,  or
civil servants and contractors of the Department of Energy who derive the
majority of their support from nuclear weapons related programs or who work at
facilities where the majority of the work is related to nuclear weapons.
        (30) the term "military contractor" shall mean any person who derives
the majority of his support from contracts with the Department of defense,  or
with the Department of Energy to support nuclear weapons related activities,
or any person who works for a corporation,  partnership or other business
entity which does the majority of its business in this fashion.
        (31) the term "military space" shall include any and all activities
directed at or primarily intended for supporting or assisting in reaching
military goals or objectives,  or maintaining the capability to do so;  as
well as any space related activity involving military personnel or military
contractors.
        (32) the term "civilian space" shall include any and all activities
directed at understanding the origin,  evolution and present state of the
solar system and the universe,  understanding the origin of life,
understanding or exploiting the economic utility of space and celestial
bodies,  and colonizing or settling space for peaceful purposes and the
benefit of all mankind.
        (33) the term "military"  shall include any and all personnel,
activities,  programs,  and goals enumerated in or implied by definitions 28
through 31 above.
        (34) the term "civilian" shall include those personnel,  activities
and goals enumerated or implied in definition 32 above or excluded from
definition 33.
        (35) the term "practical use"  shall mean efforts consisting of any
purposeful ongoing activity with a stated purpose,  result or desired end.
        (36) the term "capitalism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where
private parties hold equity in commercial enterprises,  and make management
decisions concerning their operation and direction.
        (37) the term "free market"  shall mean the socioeconomic system where
private parties choose what and how much of various goods and services to buy
or sell, as well as what prices to charge for such goods and services.
        (38) the term "socialism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where
the government holds an equity position in commercial enterprises,  and makes
management decisions concerning their operation or direction.
        (39) the term "communism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where
the government holds an equity position in commercial enterprises,  makes
management decisions concerning their operation or direction,  and where a
single agency,  department or bureau determines the amounts of goods or
services to be offered or produced,  or the price to be charged for them.

(to be continued)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:35:43 CDT
From: Bret Wingert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Computers/Software: Redundancy! Crosschecking!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I think soem one once mentioned that there is more than one computer onboard
>the shuttle..
>
To quote Ed McMahon:  You are correct, sir!
There are five computers running the GN&C software during dynamic phases
of flight.  4 run identical software and "cross check" each other during
the phase.  If a computer is out of sync it is "voted out."  This has
never happened in flight.  It could be restarted in orbit if desired.
Additionally, there is a 5th computer which runs different software
which "listens" during dynamic flight phases.  It can be engaged by a
crewmember if needed.  This also has not ever been necessary.


Bret Wingert
[e-mail]

(713)-282-7534
FAX: [phone]

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

Date: 27 Jul 93 08:43:15 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet manned spacecraft accidents [was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems]
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, gary@ke4zv (Gary Coffman) writes:
>There have been two dangerous in flight failures of US manned hardware,
>one deadly, Apollo 13 and Challenger. The Russians have had one for
>sure, and maybe more.

The Soviet Union has announced three or four in flight failures of their
hardware (depending on whether you count firing the escape rocket on the pad as
"in flight").  The Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 accidents resulted in loss of the
crews, while the other two (unnumbered by the Soviets) resulted in the longest
suborbital spaceflight and the only use of a luanch escape system.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 93 08:37:47 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space

In article <[e-mail]>, lukpla@scorch (Luke Plaizier) writes:
[...]
>(80) The following is a long list of trivia tid-bits which comes from the
>    December 1987 issue of Space Flight News. It was published as a quizz,
>    and the answers were found in the same issue. Only those questions
>    worthy of being items of trivia are included.
>(a) This is a list of 'should not have but did' of what some astronauts/
>    cosmonauts took into space.
[...]
>        (ii) Tom Stafford took a small set of handbells along for the
>    Gemini 8 mission, which took place just before Christmas.

Stafford did not fly on Gemini 8.  He did fly on Gemini 6 (sometimes called
Gemini 6A) which flew in December 1965.  It was launched "out of order" after
Gemini 7, and rendezvoused with Gemini 7.

>(103) Apollo 1 was scheduled to actually fly in late 1966. As development
>    of the black-1 spacecraft progressed, it became apparent that the
               block
>    Command Module earmarked for the Apollo 1 missions would not be ready
>    in time for a tentatively-scheduled joint flight involving the
>    tenth and final manned Gemini mission, Gemini 12, in late 1966.
>    The tragic Apollo 1 fire occurred in February, 1967.

I recall it happening in late January.

>    [Space Flight News, November 1989]
[...]
>(114) Of the Apollo astronauts, nearly all of them are alive. Sadly, Jack
>    Swigert was the first Lunar-Orbiting astronaut, and Deke Slayton
>    the first Moon Walking astronauts to die.

Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
never went into orbit.  Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space
flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 02:14:00 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC

> Date: 24 Jul 1993 23:24 CDT
[e-mail]

writes:

>[e-mail] writes:
>
>  Heck they tested the Saturn V at 110% of rated thrust here,

I do not have any recollection of any Saturn V (S-IC) being tested at
anymore than "nominal" thrust, at MSFC, or elsewhere. Tell me which
 one, and I will look it up in my compendium of S-1C test reports.

. There were some engine tests ("F-1A") at 1.8 million
pounds (which my mental arithmetic says is 120
percent) thrust, but none on vehicles, to my knowledge, and
certainly  not a set, I don't think there were ever that many
of the up-rated engines in existence. I do not recall any of the
F-1A tests being at MSFC, but I wouldn't have necessarily
known, or remembered that.

> In Mississippi the ASRM plant is way off in the boonies with no
250,000 plus city nearby.

Yes, near Iuka, at the northeast corner of the state. The proposed
static test site is at the Stennis Space Center, which is between Bay
Saint Louis and Picayune, that is to say  almost as far away from
Iuka as is possible in Mississippi, almost in the southwest corner
(and not that far from New Orleans).


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 929
------------------------------