Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 05:06:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #631 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 5 Jan 93 Volume 15 : Issue 631 Today's Topics: asteroids beyond Jupiter (2 msgs) Dante Advisory #4 Dante Advisory #5 Galileo's antenna How many flights are Orbiters designed for? (2 msgs) Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement Nasa flight sim code Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) SSTO vs 2 stage (2 msgs) Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) 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: 4 Jan 93 16:26:29 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: asteroids beyond Jupiter Newsgroups: sci.space gawne@stsci.edu writes: >In article <1992Dec2t.edu> <3342.29953@hpcv3@hp.caacp.com>, >billn@hp53@ac.cv.c.cvom (bill nelson) writes: > >> My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the >> "asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). I have made no claim as to >> where they can orbit. Jyonder is large enough to cause significant >> perturbation to their orbits. >Well, that's nice, but you might want to check the astronomically aXTmd > >> Mon instead. And just how do you propose to define origins here? >Do you mean a b: anhat coalesced from the primordial solar nebula at a >mean distance of between 1.4 and 5.2 AU from the center of that neolar ? >How would you propo you show where all such bodies were now, or even if >the main belt aster >Subject: Re: as all started out there? >> However, it is a long way from Jrbit.r to Neptune. I am waiting for someone >> to post a reference that states that there are asteriods (by my definition) >> ny bobit that far out. >So who the heck are you? President of the International Ack thmical Union? >When Charlie Kowal discovered Chiron it was classed as an asteroid, and it's >orbit takes it well past Saturn. Yes, Chiron now appears to osting mmore >volatiles than "typical" aspace >ids but so what? >-Bill Gawne, Space Telepace Te Science Institute >#! Now that you mention Chiron, could someone give me a few references to popular articles on Chiron. I know a space artist who wants to paint as it in its outgassing phases. Sky and Telescope articles would be ideal. He wants to make the painting realistic. Thanks. -- Dave Stephenson Geodetic Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 17:52:20 GMT From: Greg F Walz Chojnacki Subject: asteroids beyond Jupiter Newsgroups: sci.space >>In article <1992Dec2t.edu> <3342.29953@hpcv3@hp.caacp.com>, >>billn@hp53@ac.cv.c.cvom (bill nelson) writes: >> My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the "asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). I have made no claim as to where they can orbit. Jyonder is large enough to cause significant perturbation to their orbits. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the original poster intersted less in terminology than whether an object in the "main" asteroid belt could be perturbed into an orbit like, say, Chiron's? If so, I don't know the answer (I suspect it's yes), but it's an interesting question. (I'm just trying to put out misdirected flames.) Greg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:35:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Dante Advisory #4 Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics Charles Redmond Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Md. Jan 1, 1993 (Phone: 301/286-8955) DANTE ADVISORY #4 As of 8:35 pm January 1, the Dante robot was suspended about 21 feet below the crater rim at Mt. Erebus, Antarctica, while the project team there reset the computers which operate the robot's depth-perception and walking systems. The robot had been successfully "launched" from its stationary position at the top of the 750-foot deep crater at about 2:00 am EST January 1 and had begun crawling down the 40-degree incline towards the crater floor, suspended by a critical support cable being reeled out by the robot itself. The computer reset was required because of activities which had occurred the day before when both the Antarctic Erebus "hut" computers and the remote computers located at the Goddard Space Flight Center Dante payload control room were both in communication with and controlling the robot. This "telerobotic" operation is one of the major objectives of this joint NASA-National Science Foundation demonstration project. The Goddard computer connection was lost as a natural consequence of losing the satellite connection through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-West. The satellite communications between Antarctica and Goddard are scheduled for pre-set periods each day. The computer network connects the Erebus computers and enables them all to function as a distributed computing system. In the Antarctic location there are several of these computers, some of which are located in the operations hut about 1.5 miles away from the volcano's rim, and one which is located right on the rim. When communications are established between Antarctica and Goddard through the TDRS satellite, the Goddard computers are added to the robot network. COMPUTER PROBLEM DESCRIBED AS COMMON James Osborn, the Goddard-based Erebus project manager from Carnegie-Mellon University's Robotics Institute, said this type of computer problem is quite common in universities and is easily fixed now that the team is aware of the problem. Fixing this situation, Osborn said, is a simple matter of resetting all the computers. In the case of the one located on the rim, Eric Hoffman, a member of the Carnegie-Mellon team located at the Mt. Erebus site, would have to actually go to the rim since the team believed their attempts to reset the computers using software were not adequate. Osborn said the Antarctic team was expecting to have this problem fixed sometime between the last communications with Goddard at 8:35 pm EST Jan. 1, and the first communications session scheduled for Jan. 2 at 1:30 pm EST. Dave Lavery, the Erebus program manager also located in the Antarctic, expected the team to have advanced the robot's position several more hundred feet lower into the crater by early afternoon on Saturday, Jan. 2, Eastern Time. An earlier problem with the robot's tether reel mechanism had delayed the launch of the robot yesterday and was finally resolved when the Erebus team members decided to physically modify the mechanism by removing a portion of the winding system. REEL MECHANISM WAS STICKING DUE TO COLD The reel mechanism is very much like the reel on a fishing rod and has a device which moves back and forth like a bobbin to lay the reel smoothly onto the spool. The "bobbin" had been sticking because of the very cold temperatures. The Erebus team had sprayed lubricant on the mechanism in several attempts to get it to operate smoothly, but ultimately removed it completely. Dave Lavery said this would present no problems to the descent and bottom-of-the-crater exploration phases of this project because the tether was properly tensioned and wound smoothly. It was only the rewinding of the tether onto the reel which presented a possible problem. Lavery said the team understood the risk of this possibly inhibiting the robot's safe return up the crater wall but was willing to accept the risk to get the descent and exploration phase underway. The current schedule according to both Lavery and Osborn calls for a two-and-a-half day descent and exploration phase beginning at approximately 2:00 pm EST today and lasting through Sunday, January 3. During this period the robot will descend down 70- to 90-degree slopes on the volcano's inner rim wall and will traverse across about 150 feet of crater floor to a molten lava lake. PROJECT IS DEMONSTRATING NEW EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES NASA and the National Science Foundation are undertaking this demonstration project to develop technology and telecommunications capabilities which NASA could use in future explorations of the Moon or Mars and which the NSF might apply to its ongoing research activities in the Antarctic. Part of the test involving the transfer of control of the robot from the Mt. Erebus team to team members located at a payload control center at Goddard was successfully tested yesterday, Dec. 31 Eastern Time. Carnegie-Mellon University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology are partners with NASA and the NSF as robotics and volcano experimenters for this project. Carnegie-Mellon has four team members located on the Antarctic ice and an additional five team members located at the Goddard payload control center as part of this project. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology has two members associated with this project and two members associated with an allied project on the ice for the Erebus demonstration. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 16:38:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Dante Advisory #5 Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics Charles Redmond Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Md. Jan 2, 199 (Phone: 301/286-8955) DANTE ADVISORY #5 (all other things being, equal, the FINAL Dante Advisory) At 5:10 pm Eastern Standard Time Saturday, January 2, the Erebus project team located on the ice at the foot of the Mt. Erebus volcano in Antarctica called off any further exploration by the 8-legged rappelling robot Dante because of a physical break in the fiber optical cable which connects the robot with the computers providing its machine intelligence. The team reported the results of a day's troubleshooting during a one-hour-long video conference which included their colleagues located at the remote robot control site at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The conference was called following what had been a series of seemingly minor problems which had cropped up during the past two days in attempts to deploy the robot down the 750- foot deep, nearly vertical incline, from the rim of the continuously active volcano to the lava lake below. At the time the team called off any further mission operation, the robot Dante remained suspended approximately 21 feet below the rim of the crater having been successfully launched yesterday. Dante had moved the 21 feet on its own during initial testing of the robot control mechanisms and had been halted in its further progress by what, at the time, seemed to be computer network problems. The team reported that further trouble-shooting of the computer network problem disclosed kinks in the fiber optical cable which connects the sensors and motor mechanisms of the robot with the computer systems which provide Dante with a depth perception capability and a self- navigation capability. The team, in examining the fiber optical cable kinks, caused a break which stopped all communications between the robot and the controlling computers. In this passage, transmitted from Antarctica early this morning Eastern time, Dave Lavery, the project supervisor and the NASA telerobotic program manager, reports how this situation arose: "By late in the afternoon, the problem had been isolated to the fiber optic cable which stretches between the robot and the control station two kilometers away. It was found that the passive deployment system which releases the fiber from the robot as it walks had formed multiple kinks in the fiber which had reduced data communications to the robot. At 1955 hours, while removing the fiber optic cable from the deployment mechanism, the fiber was severed entirely, cutting off all communications with the robot. Without integrity in this cable, the robot cannot operate." During the conference today, the Erebus project team located in Antarctica indicated they have a rescue plan for the robot Dante which the team simulated in practice sessions held in Pittsburgh before their arrival in the Antarctic on Dec. 15. This rescue plan calls for using the Dante robot carrier Geryon to hoist the robot up from its current position to the top of the volcano rim. From there, the team will place Dante on Geryon and then move back down the approximately 1.5 miles from the rim to the base camp. Once at the base camp, Dante and Geryon will be disassembled and placed into the shipping crates which were used to get them from Pittsburgh to the Antarctic. The rest of the base camp will be similarly broken down and prepared for shipment back through McMurdo Sound station. The team estimated that the rescue of the robot to the rim position could take from one to two days beginning tomorrow, Sunday, Jan. 3 Eastern Time. The trip down the mountain to the base camp could be done in one or two days, depending on local weather conditions. The team must also break down the communications gear and antenna which allowed for transmission of video and computer data through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite and the computers which are presently located in the base camp hut. This process could take as much as five days. The team reported that one of the considerations in their decision to call the demonstration project off at this point was the time period remaining until they must leave the side of the volcano. By January 15 the team has to be back at McMurdo station because of impending ice-up of the Ross Sea and a worsening of general weather conditions. This time constraint has existed all along but became of higher importance when the break in the fiber optical cable occurred. The team indicated they had contacted McMurdo Station and determined that a replacement fiber cable was not available, nor were connectors for this type of cable which might have allowed for a repair operation of this cable. The supporting team at the Goddard payload operations control center was able to find a supplier for identical cable but could not guarantee delivery of that cable to the Antarctic in time to make the repair, perform the rest of the descent down into the volcano and still get the robot back up to the top and pack everything up in time to depart on January 15. Dave Lavery said during the conference that the team considered the project an "unqualified success" in one of the three primary objectives, that of testing the remote control of a robot. The Carnegie-Mellon University team located at Goddard had successfully commanded the Dante robot the previous day while the robot was poised at the rim awaiting its deployment into the volcano crater. The robot demonstration project had three objectives: to test telerobotic capabilities; to test the use of such sophisticated hardware in a very harsh and demanding environment; and to test the use of advanced computer programs which would enable machines such as the Dante robot to act under a form of machine intelligence. According to Lavery, the first two objectives of this experiment were met. The robot never got to a point where it was under operation of its own autonomous control systems. NASA and the National Science Foundation undertook this demonstration project to develop technology and telecommunications capabilities which NASA could use in future explorations of the Moon or Mars and which the NSF might apply to its ongoing research activities in the Antarctic. Part of the test involved transferring control of the robot from the Mt. Erebus team to team members located at the Goddard payload control center. This portion of the project tested the "telepresence" capabilities of such robots for future NASA exploration missions and is the portion of the demonstration which was tested and called an unqualified success. Carnegie-Mellon University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology are partners with NASA and the NSF as robotics and volcano experimenters for this project. Team members from Carnegie-Mellon were located both in the Antarctic and at Goddard. New Mexico Tech members were located at the Mt. Erebus portion. The robot included six different sensors which were to have provided significant and new date about the physical and chemical composition of gasses and aerosols being released into the atmosphere by the Mt. Erebus volcano. The following sets of quotations come from the video conference which began at 5:10 pm EST Saturday, Jan. 2, and represent the comments from the team leader, Dave Lavery, and the two co-principal investigators of this project -- Professor Phillip Kyle, representing the science side of the project and William "Red" Whittaker, representing the robotic side of the project. David Lavery, NASA Telerobotics program manager: "There is obvious disappointment over what is a component failure, but we're proud of what we've accomplished. We've gone further than anyone said was possible and much farther than anyone said we would get. "We've made tremendous progress and compressed five years of work into one year. "The mission is an unqualified success in terms of the telerobotic aspects. The robot works. The prototypes are worthy contenders for inclusion in any further planetary exploration. The aspects of sending autonomous robots on planetary exploration mission has been proven as well. "We were given in January 1992, when we started this project, odds of about 20 percent of probably successful completion. This was a very, very risky venture. This has been a true adventure. Our spirits remain undaunted." Phillip Kyle, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Tech. and co- principal investigator: "This has whetted the appetite of volcanologists everywhere. This was the ultimate challenge. There is no more nastier volcano. It has been a remarkable achievement. "I think of this as one small step and expect we will be seeing robots exploring inside volcanoes around the world in a few years. "This demonstration project showed we could integrate science into a robot." William "Red" Whittaker, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. and co- principal investigator: "We are calling it off because of a fiber optical cable break for which we have no workaround. "The achievement has been tremendous. We've written over 150,000 lines of new software code. We've used the ground station for the first time. "This has been a dream program. It was inspirational work and I'm really proud of what we've done. We've made a bold leap and pushed this technology from the laboratory into the real world. "This is just one example of what must be thousands of similar applications. This was the real thing. This robot left the laboratory and had a real job with a real science customer. "We've learned a great deal during this experience in Antarctica, especially about self-reliance and ingenuity. "This has really been a dream year. It called for the best in a lot of people" Participants in the conference from Antarctica were the following individuals: David Lavery, NASA Headquarters Steve Thompson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center William Whittaker, Carnegie-Mellon University Eric Hoffman, CMU Dan Christian, CMU David Wettergreen, CMU Phillip Kyle, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Nelia Dunbar, NMIMT Bill Macintosh, NMIMT Sara Krall, Antarctic Support Associates-National Science Foundation Ken Sims, ASA-NSF Participants located in the temporary robot control center at Goddard during this conference: James Osborn, Carnegie-Mellon University Paul Keller, CMU Jay West, CMU Chris Fedor, CMU Jim Christo, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Bob Rodriguez, NASA GSFC Bendix Field Engineering Company ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:59:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo's antenna Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article , bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes... >Is there anyway of telling that the hammering is making progress (aside >from rib release)? The sun sensor and wobble measurements are the two main indicators. The shadow of the antenna falling across the sun sensor is used measure the extent the antenna is open. Since the stuck ribs cause the antenna to be more open on one side than the other (asymmetrically deployed) and the spacecraft is spinning, a slight wobble exists which can be measured. Also, when the antenna is fully open, a couple of switches will be activated. After the first antenna hammering last week, the sun sensor and wobble measurments indicated a change in the antenna, the first change measured since the initial antenna deployment attempt in April 1991. The recent sun sensor data indicates that the antenna is "more open", and this is either due to one of the three stuck ribs popping loose, or increased tension on the antenna is causing it to bend out more. Several more hammering sessions are scheduled this month to keep applying more force on the ballscrew to free the stuck ribs. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:06:57 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the >proof of concept vehicle. If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle. DoD may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope McDAC is looking at other sources also. Perhaps the Japanese would be interested in a joint partnership. It's too bad the Delta Clipper wasn't started several years ago when McDonnell Douglas was healthy enough to finance such a project itself. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 18:14:13 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the >>proof of concept vehicle. >If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle. DoD >may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope >McDAC is looking at other sources also. There will be no private financing of a SSTO proof of concept. The current and projected market is simply too small and not profitable enough to warrent private capital. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 17:17:00 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement Newsgroups: sci.space In <72827@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: > As Gary and I pointed out, Pegasus really started slipping after > maiden flight... about eighteen months between flights 2 and 3, to > be precise. That DC-X has slipped little prior to maiden flight is > a good sign, but hardly justifies such smugness. Well, after the first Pegasus flight, they had to build another one. Not because it failed, but because it worked. Unless something catastrophic happens on the first test flight, you won't have to build another DC-X before the second one. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 17:05:26 GMT From: Don Thompson Subject: Nasa flight sim code Newsgroups: sci.space Would anyone happen to know where a body could get information on old flight simulation code written by NASA or any of the military branches? I am interested in obtaining any code that might be declassified and publicly availible. In addition, any data related to the flight models of old or new aircraft would be nice. Thanks -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Don "Syco" Thompson | I may be opinionated, but at least Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com | my opinions are my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's no kill like a guns kill". Lt Commander Joe "Hoser" Satrapa, USN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 17:20:30 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely >as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing >research. Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab, >TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research. If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site, does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle? >Even a TDRS launch is part of the research effort, since the >constellation is used to support various birds doing research >missions. If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable. Does that make the Intelsat or the cable a research venture? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:51:58 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage Newsgroups: sci.space In <93002.220235SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon writes: >What I understood Bruce to be proposing/discussing was the idea of >building a bottom stage for a DC-1 for those occaisons when a 'heavy' >payload needed launch. (Heavy - either something that grosses out >long before it bulks out the cargo bay, or something that is going >higher than LEO on one launch (for whatever reason)). I understood that too. Perhaps you did not understand what I meant when I said, if there are enough heavy cargoes to justify a new vehicle, it would be more cost-effective to build a larger SSTO than a two-stage kludge? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 18:02:56 GMT From: Graydon Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article , ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) says: > >In <93002.220235SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon >writes: > >>What I understood Bruce to be proposing/discussing was the idea of >>building a bottom stage for a DC-1 for those occaisons when a 'heavy' >>payload needed launch. (Heavy - either something that grosses out >>long before it bulks out the cargo bay, or something that is going >>higher than LEO on one launch (for whatever reason)). > >I understood that too. Perhaps you did not understand what I meant >when I said, if there are enough heavy cargoes to justify a new >vehicle, it would be more cost-effective to build a larger SSTO >than a two-stage kludge? Rather depends on how many heavy cargoes there are, doesn't it? As I understand it, the point to an SSTO is to make expendables non-cost effective. So there *won't* be another vehicle fairly soon after DC-1's get flying in numbers if they work as advertised. If there's one or two heavy cargoes a year, Bruce's quick and simple second stage might make a great deal more sense than scaling up an SSTO design by a factor of five, which I would expect to be quite difficult, since it's a complete re-design and probably needs new engines. A company with three or four bottom stages could happily specialize in lifting other people's DC-1s with heavy cargos (land your DC-1 next to their stacking facility after its last trip up) and make decent money at it if there were enough cargoes ('enough' quantified after someone does a real design study for the thing and provides some numbers for things that need to go up in one piece and weigh between 10 and 50 tons.) Why would you expect the design effort for a factor five scale up to be less expensive? Graydon ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 18:09:47 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the >only way to fly! I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in this statement. BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 15:23:49 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1992Dec25.002926.4218@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having >>trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from >>the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using >>what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where >>people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting. > >Well, Gary, some of us have the theory that free societies are >more efficient than "command economies." Then our launchers should be cheaper than theirs. And what I'm saying above is that indeed I think they are when all their hidden costs are properly assigned. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 631 ------------------------------