Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 05:01:46 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #443 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 21 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 443 Today's Topics: Dyson Sphere's (again???) FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Galileo Update - 11/20/92 Lunar "colony" reality check man-rated centrifuge in So. California?? Moon Capture Theory (3 msgs) NASA Town Meetings Schedule Obscure Help Needed Scientific method Shuttle replacement (3 msgs) Solar Sailing Space suit research? SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement) (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:22:55 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Dyson Sphere's (again???) Newsgroups: sci.space In Maulik Harish Shah writes: > This had probably been discussed (I caught the tail end of a Dyson >Sphere thread in the backposts). But: > How would you detect a dyson sphere? A true dyson sphere (as far as I >know) would totally enclose the sphere. And, logically, the Material >that you would have to make the dyson sphere out of would have to have >an enormous tensile strength. Well, Dyson himself did not actually propose a solid sphere, which would require materials that are not only unavailable but unreasonably strong, given our understanding of physics. What he invisioned was a large number of habitats in orbit about a star which, together, would completely encircle the star in a ball-of-twine formation. From a distance, it would look like a solid shell. A star enclosed by a Dyson sphere (either Dyson's original or the solid version, which was invented later by science-fiction writers) would be invisible at normal wavelengths but would be visible, due to waste heat, in the far infrared. To astronomers, a star enclosed by a Dyson sphere would appear as an infrared supergiant. Dyson proposed that we look for such stars as a means of finding extraterrestrial intelligence. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:14:37 GMT From: "Michael C. Matthews" Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov17.164440.2394@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > > > The technology described in the article copied below could be used to >power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.: > > > FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY > [blah, blah, blah...] > > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics, UW-EC ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think THIS is the REAL KEY to this ARTICLE. BS physics, indeed. -- Mike Matthews, ex-Tether Dude +-------------> matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov "Had the Shuttle on a String" \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)! Lockheed-ESC | Houston, TX | *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD *** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:40:35 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 11/20/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director GALILEO MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT POST-LAUNCH November 12 - 19, 1992 SPACECRAFT 1. On November 13, the Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-16) was performed on the spacecraft. The maneuver used the spacecraft's lateral thrusters to impart a predicted total delta velocity of 0.89 m/s. This maneuver was executed at 1200 bps with the spacecraft pointed approximately 7 degrees off the Sun. The spacecraft's performance throughout the activity was nominal. All RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) pressures and temperatures and attitude control indicators were near predicted levels. After the lateral burn segment, the sequence planned pointing correction was executed; the sequence planned spin correction was not needed. 2. On November 14, after completion of TCM-16, the Energetic Particle Detector (EPD) instrument was moved from Sector O (TCM safe position) to Sector 5 and scanning operation initiated to continue science data collection. The science scanning mode continued until November 17 at which time the EPD was moved to Sector 4 and the motor turned off. The EPD instrument is continuing to collect science data in Sector 4. 3. On November 14 and 15, delta Differenced One-Way range (DOR) passes were performed over DSS-14/63 (Goldstone/Madrid) and DSS-14/43 (Goldstone/Canberra). Initial results indicate the four delta DOR passes were successfully performed. 4. On November 16, a periodic RPM 10-Newton thruster maintenance activity was performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity. The P-thrusters were not flushed because they were used to perform science turn (SITURN) activities on the same day. Spacecraft performance throughout the activity was normal. 5. On November 16, the spacecraft performed a 13 degree SITURN. The purpose of the SITURN was to maintain the spacecraft within plus or minus 10 degrees of the sun at the current solar distance. Real-time commands were also sent to change the downlink telemetry format back to the Low Rate Science (7.68 kbps) from the Engineering High Rate 1200bps (automatically selected in the maneuver PA) to collect a unique near-Earth magnetosphere data. 6. On November 16, the Earth vector and Earth stars were updated to the spacecraft's current attitude. This change implements the attitude maintenance strategy required in the case of an AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) POR (Power-On Reset). If a fault occurs which terminates the currently executing sequence, the spacecraft will maintain its current attitude. 7. On November 17, the Relay Radio Hardware (RRH) oscillators No. 1 and 2 were powered on in preparation for the Probe Mission Sequence Test (MST) scheduled for November 20, 1992. Shortly after turn on the oscillator temperatures increased to expected values. 8. On November 18, real-time commands were sent to turn the Ultraviolet Spectrometer (UVS) instrument on, load and readout the UVS memory, and start the UVS microprocessor. Three memory readouts of the UVS load were completed and verified prior to turning the UVS microprocessor on. The instrument was then configured to a nominal state with the master high voltage disabled, G-channel selected, and the grating stepping. The UVS is now properly configured for the start of EE-9 (Earth-Earth 9 sequence). The UVS supplemental heater was turned off to complete the activity. 9. On November 19, real-time commands were sent to increase the telemetry rate from 7.68 kbps to 28.8 kbps in preparation for the Probe Mission Sequence Test (MST) on the following day. Additionally, Delayed Action Commands (DACs) were sent to turn ranging off and two-way non-coherent (TWNC) on prior to the MST and reconfigure to ranging on and TWNC off after the MST completes. These actions were taken to optimize telecommunications performance during the Probe MST. 10. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC measurement has ranged from 15DN to 17DN and now reads 15DN (3.5 volts). The DC measurement has ranged from 134DN (15.7 volts) to 142DN (16.7 volts) and now reads 142DN (16.7 volts). These measurement variations are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team. 11. The Spacecraft status as of November 19, 1992, is as follows: a) System Power Margin - 80 watts b) Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 6 degree off-sun (leading) and 16 degrees off-earth (lagging) e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-28.8kbps (coded)/LGA-1 f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within acceptable range g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range h) Orbiter Science- PWS, PLS, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC and DDS are powered on i) Probe/RRH - RRH oscillators powered on, temperatures within acceptable range j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours Time To Initiation - 260 hours UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL: 1. The EE-12 Final Profile Design Product was approved by the Project on November 13. This sequence covers spacecraft activities from January 20, 1993 to January 23, 1993 and from February 8, 1993 to April 12, 1993. 2. The EE-11 Preliminary Sequence and Command Generation products were approved by the Project on November 17. This sequence covers spacecraft activities from December 7 to December 28, 1992 including the Earth 2 closest approach on December 8. 3. The EE-9 Final Sequence and Command Generation package was approved for transmission by the Project on November 19, 1992. This sequence covers spacecraft activities from November 23, 1992 to December 5, 1992. The sequence is scheduled to be sent to the spacecraft on November 21. GDS (Ground Data Systems): 1. A second SPC-60 (Madrid Signal Processing Center) Telemetry Data Flow test was conducted on Monday, November 16. The test was successful in establishing a configuration for the Probe checkouts. This configuration utilized two Type A TPA's (Telemetry Processing Assemblies) in parallel, one configured to the 56K full duplex line and one configured to the 224kbps Simplex line, with Area Routing Assembly (ARA-1) as Prime and ARA-2 as backup. The only drop-outs with this configuration were associated with "line hits" and were recoverable on ARA ODR (Original Data Recording) replays. The test also successfully demonstrated the configuration to be used to support 134.4 kbps High Rate science at Earth 2. As a result of an excellent effort by DSN (Deep Space Network) and SPC-60 personnel, data dropouts have been minimal this week. TRAJECTORY As of noon Thursday, November 19, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory status was as follows: Distance from Earth 14,931,800 km (.10 AU) Distance from Sun 161,989,800 km (1.08 AU) Heliocentric Speed 118,300 km per hour Distance from Jupiter 912,828,500 km Round Trip Light Time 1 minute, 38 seconds SPECIAL TOPIC 1. As of November 19, 1992, a total of 8684 real-time commands have been transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 3660 were initiated in the sequence design process and 5024 initiated in the real-time command process. In the past week, 35 real time commands were transmitted: none were initiated in the sequence design process and 35 initiated in the real time command process. Major command activities this week included commands to reconfigure the downlink telemetry data rate to 7.68 kbps, turn the UVS instrument on and configure it for science data collection, turn the UVS supplemental heater off, switch the telemetry rate to 28.8 kbps, and configure ranging and the TWNC for the probe MST. 2. A training rehearsal for the GOPEX experiment operations was successfully completed November 18th. The rehearsal was supported by elements of the Galileo Flight Team (MCT, NAV, and SDT), DSN Ops Team and GOPEX operations Team at Table Mountain Observatory (TMO) and Kirtland AFB. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Learn to recognize the /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | inconsequential, then |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ignore it. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 92 12:04:25 EST From: Benjamin Cash Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Nov19.020207.11499@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au> wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Wayne Harvey) writes: > >I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually >*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million >years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early Just to toss a couple of pennies at this one, I believe that the latest and best accepted theory on how we got the moon involved a collision between proto-earth and another proto-planet about the size of Mars (note that this was emphatically NOT Mars itself) We ran a computer simulation in one of my geology classes that showed that at the proper angle the collision produced a cloud of debris that set up in orbit around the earth, in a stable enough situation that they would stay there instead of crashing back down or flying away. This explains why the moon and earth have very similar compositions, are of approximately the same age etc... I learned this a couple of years ago, so it may be out of date and I may have forgotten some, but this was definitely seen as much more likely than the captured, simultaneous formation, or the 'tearing off' theories. Anybody who is more up-to-date feel free to correct me, and I'll try to hunt down my notes for that class. Ben Cash cash@husc.harvard.edu Havard University ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 92 18:22:11 GMT From: Tom Perrine Subject: man-rated centrifuge in So. California?? Newsgroups: sci.space I'm posting this query for a friend with no net access, so please respond via e-mail to tep@logicon.COM. Are there any man-rated centrifuges in Southern California? My friend is specifically interested in any near San Diego, although anywhere in the state would be of interest. Thanks, Tom Perrine tep@logicon.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:31:46 GMT From: Martin Connors Subject: Moon Capture Theory Newsgroups: sci.space In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > > >I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually > >*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million > >years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early > >human legends.-- There were major developments in thinking on the origin of the Moon in the 1980's. Basically the three time-honored theories of which the above is one (minus the part about human legends), the other two being co-accretion and Darwin (Jr)'s tidal ripping out, have found a synthesis in the possibility that a giant impact in the early solar system ripped part of Earth's mantle out into an orbit debris ring which then coalesced to form our Moon, with subsequent tidally-induced orbital evolution eventually taking it to a larger orbit. This accounts for some of the composition aspects of the Earth/Moon system (Earth has all the iron) if the Earth's core had already formed at the time of the impact. Check this out in Hartmann, W.K., Phillips, R. J., and G. J. Taylor "Origin of the Moon" published by Lunar and Planetary Inst, Houston in 1986 as the conference proceedings from the Kona meeting where these ideas came together. Some of the articles are technical - others not too bad in that respect. Any very recent edition of a good into textbook (Snow for example) also will have more details. In short many of the objections you raise in your original post are very valid and that theory is no longer accepted in its original form - the 'most accepted' (different from being 'right') theory at the moment combines it with the other two as described above. In that way the severe bad points of each are diminished (by synergy!), but there are still a few things to be ironed out... Martin Connors | Space Research | martin@space.ualberta.ca (403) 492-2526 University of Alberta | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:57:18 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Moon Capture Theory Newsgroups: sci.space Tom (18084TM@msu.edu) wrote: > > >I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually > >*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million > >years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early > >human legends. That would lead to the assumption that the moon would > > This seems a rather shaky theory on first look. For the Earth to capture > something the size of the moon, and yet stay in the same orbit, and a > nearly circular one at that, seems highly unlikely. I could imagine a > > Has anyone heard of a fleshing-out of this theory? Does it use simulations, > of is it based just on legends, or what? > This is more from that 70's pulp book about the Hollow Moon, NASA's conspiracy to hide the true nature of the Apollo missions etc. etc. The book quotes legends as saying 'long ago, before there was a Moon' and things like that. Since the Moon was supposed to be a self-propelled starship. the usual capture issues didn't apply. 800 million years is a bit further into the Dreamtime than most legend hunters like to go..... -- ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:43:42 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: Moon Capture Theory Newsgroups: sci.space >>I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually >>*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million >>years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early >>human legends. I find it *very* difficult to believe that events 800 million years ago would have corollaries in the myths of a species 4 orders of magnitude less old, except perhaps by co-incidence. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:12:03 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: NASA Town Meetings Schedule Newsgroups: sci.space In article , srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes... > Here's a list of the remaining NASA Town Meetings around the country. >I missed the New England because I found out too late (was this stuff ever >posted to the NET?). > Yes, this information was posted to sci.space and sci.space.news a month ago. > December 3, 2:00-6:30 pm, Ramo Auditorium, CALTECH, Pasadena One update, the location for December 3 NASA Town Meeting has been changed to California State University, Dominquez Hills. >For more information, call 202-453-3006 ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Learn to recognize the /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | inconsequential, then |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ignore it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:29:30 GMT From: "John S." Subject: Obscure Help Needed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1ej4mtINN7i0@nuala.hal.COM> juan@nuala.hal.COM (John Thompson Reynolds) writes: > >Has anybody out there seen any slide rules for sale? The closest >thing I've been able to find is a simple circular slide rule included in a >"basic navigation kit". > >|> In article <1992Nov11.172831.14882@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >|> I still find it hard to believe that I could so completely >|> forget a skill I used every day not so long ago. It's also hard to >|> believe no book store seems to stock books on the subject anymore. >|> Are there no slide-rule makers left? >|> -- I'm not sure which part of the above was posted by who, but I may have one for sale. When I first started studying engineering a few years back, my father gave me one that I looked at for about 5 minutes out of curiosity. Then I tossed it onto a shelf and forgot about it. Can't imagine why anyone would want to go through the trouble of learning to use it. If I can find it, and my dad doesn't want it, (which I seriously doubt. I'm pretty sure he's never used one), I guess it's for sale. I'll look for it. \ ==============================================================================> ______ ____________________ / / __ _ _ _ _ /__ _ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ __ __ ___/ /_/ _/--/ _/\_/ ___/ _/--/ _/_- _/-' _/--/ _/_- _/-<,_/__> wes@ian.stx.com (John Shepherd) Hughes STX, Lanham, MD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:38:27 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Scientific method Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >... for instance, for instance, the Earth-impact model of the formation >of the moon has risen from obscurity to the "most favored model", with >(as far as I know) little or no new input of information - it's based on >mathematical models and old Apollo and Voyager data... There is no problem testing a new theory quite rigorously using old data, if you do it carefully. The trick is simply to get some testable predictions out of the theory before you look (closely) at the data, and then see if it checks. This does get more difficult if the new theory has to be calibrated using the same data, but sometimes it can still be done. It is more satisfying to have prediction precede experiment, because that *guarantees* that the theory was not custom-cooked to match the results, but having a theory derived from general principles precisely explain measured phenomena in detail is a valid test, and often a fairly good one. Mercury's perihelion shift is considered one of the big early tests of general relativity, even though the odd behavior of Mercury's perihelion was known well before GR was developed. In the case of the lunar-origin models, bear in mind also that "most favored" is not necessarily synonymous with "completely accepted". None of the other major theories can explain the known facts *at all* without truly drastic special-case assumptions. It's not hard being the best runner if all your competitors are in wheelchairs. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:52:02 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article <1992Nov20.143407.21964@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: ... >Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different >way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex >and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good >engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing >envelopes reduces costs. > >>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y? > >A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I >do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector. > If you are using well tested current technology, why should the gov't. pay for any of the craft? I'll agree that NASA has fumbled several balls in the arena of routine space tranportation. One of its original missions, and the one I hope it returns to is to indeed "push the envelope". Do the R&D for NASP; do the R&D (and even initial construction) for space habitat/labs (I'll leave the question of Freedom's suitability open); do the lunar/planetary explorations. But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it themselves. If GD, McD, Boeing and the rest really wanted to, they could put enough heat on NASA to convince NASA to leave the "space truck" market altogether. -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:51:45 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article <1992Nov20.155202.16554@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > If you are using well tested current technology, why should >the gov't. pay for any of the craft? The components are mostly well tested. The combination is not. >But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation >using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then >convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it >themselves... Indeed so. But the first step to showing profit potential is establishing that the concept works in practice, and this involves enough up-front financial risk that the private concerns have not been willing to fund it. (People have tried.) Nobody is confident enough in the concept that they are willing to bet their future plans on it, which means no firm orders for SSTO launchers... and not even Boeing will build an airliner without getting at least a few firm orders signed first. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:48:45 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article <1992Nov20.155202.16554@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > If you are using well tested current technology, why should >the gov't. pay for any of the craft?... First of all, this is being done to test the concept. Most (not all) of the parts exist but they are still being used in a new way. The key is the parts which don't exist yet and to veryfy the overall concept. Since DC-Y is an experimental craft then we will have a nice testbed to try new ideas. For example, after DC-Y flies we can replace the engines with aerospike engines and see if performance improves. Second of all it the issue of risk. We are currently in a catch-22: nobody launches much because costs are too high and costs are too high because nobody luanches much. SSTO offers the promise of greatly reducing costs and thereby opening the markets. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------155 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 92 16:15:35 GMT From: Bob McGwier Subject: Solar Sailing Newsgroups: sci.space I have a local high school student asking me for information on Solar sailing. I have programs that will allow him to manipulate the sail if I knew how to calculate `thrusts' etc. from the photon pressure. Any details you care to send, primarily references, that will allow me to help this very bright student, I would appreciate it. Please use EMAIL. I will summarize replies that contain useful information. Bob McGwier ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:40:47 GMT From: "John S." Subject: Space suit research? Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >I can't see any reason why low pressure would cause bleeding under the nails >as long as the pressure inside the body was equally low. Sounds like NASA >was worried about a pressure leak in the gloves, causing the pressure there >to be lower than the pressure in the rest of the suit. That could, quite >likely, cause bleeding, with the pressure inside the body pushing a small >amount of blood through the skin under the nails (which is quite thin). > This makes me curious. I'm not at all familiar with space suit design. I was wondering if they divided the suit into separate sections so that if, say there was an extreme loss of pressure in one part, the rest would remain pressurized? If so, how is the suit divided up? If this has already been discussed here, my apologies for rehashing it. In that case, could someone possibly email a response? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:20:03 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >Hmmm... this gives me an idea. Maybe the way to sell SSTO to Gore is >to emphasize the non-poluting fuel it uses. Deltas and Titans burn >nasty stuff which wold cause problems in large quantities. Actually, the biggest polluter is the Space Shuttle. (Hydrochloric acid and other byproducts from those big SRBs.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:11:16 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in >a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian >is also working on an article. That's good, but the critical articles are the ones that appear just after the first launch. There were lots of articles written about the Space Shuttle in the years before it flew, many of them by good writers who actually knew what they were talking about it. But none of them succeeded in mobilizing very much support for the Space Shuttle. That didn't happen until the public saw the launch on television and read the (often inaccurate) front-page articles from the usual AP wire service hack "science" writers. Timing is critical. I know that McDAC isn't spending a lot of money on advertising and PR, but I hope they're ready with a good press kit to hand out at the first launch. Space groups supporting SSTO should have their own press kits ready also. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 443 ------------------------------