Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 05:19:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #634 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 5 Jan 93 Volume 15 : Issue 634 Today's Topics: asteroids beyond Jupiter, capture by planets? averting doom (2 msgs) Biosphere and Pests Fabrication (was fast track failures) (2 msgs) Fiber optic umbilical Justification for the Space Program Moon Dust For Sale Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (2 msgs) Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity The Perils of Dante Toutatis Images Available UN Space Agency (2 msgs) Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) 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 18:51:23 GMT From: "Robert F. Casey" Subject: asteroids beyond Jupiter, capture by planets? Newsgroups: sci.space In article bjacobs@chopin.udel.edu (William J Jacobs) writes: >>Now, could an asteriod which is perturbed out to the orbit of Neptune, be >>captured by that planet? If so, what would cause the energy loss that would >>be needed to put it into orbit? I doubt if atmospheric braking would do >>the trick. >> >>Bill >> >There aren't many other options. To lose energy, you need to knock into >something. You have the choice of lots of little things (the atmosphere) or >one big thing (Neptune itself). But I'm really no expert on orbital mechanics, >so I'll some physics jock give more details (should be plenty of folks who >know here in sci.space). > Maybe if the planet has a more massive moon that the asteroid can shed energy to, thus allowing it to slow down enough to get captured? The preexisting moon would get to orbit further out, using that newly acquired energy? I don't mean a collision, but just gravitational interactions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:14:45 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >from a U.P. story > > WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will > come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will > look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500 > million years, scientists said Wednesday. If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this speculation? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 00:21:23 GMT From: Len Evens Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment In article <1992Dec30.161445.12236@unocal.com>, stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes: > In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: > >from a U.P. story > > > > WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will > > come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will > > look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500 > > million years, scientists said Wednesday. > > If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on > climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this > speculation? -- 1> This has nothing to do with modelling weather. The difficulty in weather prediction is that the kinds of dynamical systems being modelled are too sensitive to small changes in initial conditions for the models to be accurate over long periods of time. 2> Climate models are in fact much more accurate than weather models. This is because they are concerned with average phenomena and averages have much greater stability and predicitability. Differences about climate models' prediction of global warming by those who have studied such things are of the order of magnitude of whether warming will be a bit over 1 degree C or two or three times as high and whether it will take 50 years or 100 years. There is a very substantial amount agreement. This fact has been obscured by the intense ideological disputes over the issue. 3> The predictions of the ultimate history of the earth are based on models of stars which are really fairly simple. If the sun warms up, it is probably not too far out to suggest possible physical responses here on earth over long periods of time. This doesn't even require computer models. Of course, none of this can be certain, but remember that we are talking about periods of hundreds of millions of years. The estimate of 1.5 billion is the largest I have seen. The most recent news article that I saw suggested that a previous estimate of 100 million years was too low and that it might be more like 900 million years. Clearly this analysis is all fairly new and the arguments will be subject to intense scrutiny. However, I don't see why a consensus couldn't develop on the matter among geophysicists. This should be just a reliable and scientific as beliefs now held about the early universe or other events in deep space or deep time. 4> Except as interesting speculation, why should anyone care? Remember that the real (plentiful) fossil record on earth is only about 500 million years old. Surely no one should worry seriously about what sort of actions humanity should take to deal with such a problem. Unfortunately, this may confuse people about the issue of global warming which is something which may radically affect human societies in the next several generations and which we may be able to do something about. Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 708-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 22:57:39 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Biosphere and Pests Newsgroups: sci.space Reference Biosphere, email FSRRC@acad3.alaska.edu for info on his one man biosphere.. For possible help with pests and such, might give my Step-Dad a call he and my mom have a very good garden without pesticides and use lady-bugs and worms to produce composte and to get rid of posts, and use other methods (natural).. My Step Dad is Richard Green, Master Gardner: Richard Green 4711 Kupreanof Anchorage, Alaska 99501(?) 907-561-4938..... After all if he can grow Kewis in Alaska, he can help anyone with anything.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu PS: tell him I sent ya.. He thinks Im a worthless bum.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:02:16 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >> In article ewright@convex.com (Edward >V. Wright) writes: >> > >> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise >> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to >> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's >> fabrication done by tradesmen. Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman! >I think engineering must consider how something is to be made. The >most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured. >Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or >at least by interacting with those who do. Indeed, G. Harry Stine has an article on this very subject in the current Analog. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 00:39:01 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise >>> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to >>> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's >>> fabrication done by tradesmen. > >Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman! Not everyone is anal-retentive enough to waste bandwidth on keeping every single one of those tedious attribution lines; some of us expect people to have the sense to look at the ">" nesting depth too! :-) >>I think engineering must consider how something is to be made. The >>most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured. >>Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or >>at least by interacting with those who do. > >Indeed, G. Harry Stine has an article on this very subject in >the current Analog. Moreover, there is a deeper issue here. Yes, having the engineers out of tune with metal-bending is a bad thing when the objective is to manufacture something. It's worse, though, when they're trying to *develop* something. Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold: if you do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course you test it just in case). Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work the first time. Real-world development involves *finding out* what works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper. You have to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward. Note, you have to put reasonable efforts into trying to build the best you can, or you're just wasting time with your tests. (One of the problems found in investigation of the early Ranger program was that if you expect the first attempts to fail, nobody tries very hard to make them succeed.) But sensible engineers -- which includes Gary, actually, based on his accomplishments rather than on how he claims to have done them :-) -- know that the first prototype is most unlikely to be identical with the successful final product. Successful engineering includes bending metal and watching it break. :-) Whether the bending is done by the engineer himself or by a technician is irrelevant (except insofar as the engineer needs to understand how it's done); what matters is that the engineer is involved, because getting that metal bent and seeing how well it works is part of his job. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 00:47:46 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Fiber optic umbilical Newsgroups: sci.space In article <37410aff@ofa123.fidonet.org> Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes: >Putting a fiber optic umbilical on a remote sensing platform designed to >traverse rough terrain seems very odd to me. Can someone explain to me why >this was done? A few things come to mind such as eliminating the weight >required for a radio and associated power supply. Also the fiber optic does >allow for high reliability and high speed data transfer. > >I'm *not* throwing stones at the Dante folks. I'm just doing some head >scratching and hoping someone will explain this to me. > I don't know how Dante's umbilical is put together so I can't comment on that but... In the early 1980's, Northern Telecom pioneered the development of a helical sheath that greatly reduces the stress placed on an optical fibre due to either bending (bad!) or stretching (worse!). The helical sheath was developed in response to problems encountered when laying underground cables using a machine called a "ditch witch". I don't have any details handy but I'm sure someone else on the net can provide them. --- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Organization: Unocal Corporation References: <1992Dec22.232911.17212@cs.rochester.edu> Distribution: usa, world Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:18:13 GMT Lines: 6 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In a talk at Caltech earlier this month Carl Sagan that spin-off technology arguments are bogus. "If you want have better cooking pans, then do R&D on kitchen products." (probably in reference to low friction materials coming out of the space program.) Then too, any useful new technologies from NASA should be transfered to the commercial sector. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 23:47:51 GMT From: Justin Sullivan Subject: Moon Dust For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes: > I think this is a GREAT idea and that NASA should market MORE space items >to help finance its budget. Whats the approx cost per pound of moon rocks >anyhow? Well, if NASA lived up to more of its promises, moon rocks would be $1 a pound by now. :) Sorry.. Some taxpayers get upset when the most advanced nation in existence ruins very expensive orbiting instruments and loses space shuttles and their expensive/irreplaceable cargo(s) .. These things aren't supposed to happen! Go figure.. A two-inch piece of tape with moondust is expected to sell for ~$100K, so a pound might go for $2 million or so (at that rate). ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 23:13:02 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4989@execu.execu.com>, dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes: > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Don't know of any old sim data and such, but it would be an interesting public affairs ploy or way to make money.. Have NASA design space simulator games based on old flight.. Have different levels. Beginner would be just to get the feel of the fligth, but higher levels would give you the "pilot" and possible crew more free-reign to actually fly the space shuttle simulation or other crafts.. Gemini, MErcury, Apollo, X-Crafts. And such.. Either NASA design the game or have someone subcontract it... Any takers?? Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 00:20:12 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >I've got news for you, Gary. Those Pert charts that you are >so fond of were invented for (boo, hiss!) success-oriented >Polaris-missile program. Good engineers always expect problems... What they don't tell you in the textbooks is that although Pert charts were indeed invented for Polaris, they *weren't* used to manage it -- they were used to intimidate assorted Washington kibitzers, keeping them at arms length from the people who actually ran the project (in the traditional way, using competence and judgement rather than Pert charts). -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:57:55 GMT From: Francois Yergeau Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.150800.14058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> I wrote: > >>The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's >>the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research or mere >>"operations." > >No, the Shuttle is always doing operations unless it is Shuttle >itself which is being experimented on. When Shuttle carries spacelab, >it is engaged in operations *IN SUPPORT OF RESEARCH* but not research. which neatly underscores my point. When NASA flies a shuttle to support research, I don't think it is operating outside of its charter. >When somebody flies a roll during re-entry to see what happens, that >is research. Indeed! -- Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) | De gustibus et coloribus Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser | non disputandum Departement de Physique | -proverbe scolastique Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:14:31 GMT From: Francois Yergeau Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> I wrote: > >>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? No, it's an aircraft _I_ am using to support my research activities. >>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? Ditto, mutatis mutandis. Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research activities, pursuant to its charter. It is my understanding that this thread originated when someone claimed that NASA was not respecting its charter by operating the shuttle, which is admittedly not an experimental craft anymore. I disagree, as long as the shuttle manifest contains only genuine R&D. -- Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) | De gustibus et coloribus Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser | non disputandum Departement de Physique | -proverbe scolastique Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:33:25 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.201501.18537@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > Come on, Allen, don't get even more retentive on us! I suppose I was. I apologize. >The realistic chance of significant U.S. manned presence in orbit in >Russian hardware in the next few years is miniscule. that's not the point. The point is not what we WILL be doing but what we COULD be doing. The first step to change is realizing that alternatives exist. We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan. We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money. We could then use the savings to fly more experiments and furthur open the space frontier. That is what we can do with conservative engineering. Alternatively, we can follow the Coffman school of engineering which states that nothing which doesn't exist today can be built. Under this plan, we support Shuttle (since no alternatives are possible) and spend our lives siting on this rock. >problems, scheduling, etc.... As a practical matter, I'd be willing >to bet that even moderate effort on a reusable SSTO (DC or otherwise) >could be available within a year or so of the time frame it would take >to convert our manned space program from Shuttle to Soyuz. Shuttle isn't getting us anywhere. Wrose, is sucks up all the money we get preventing progress. DC can work but it may not work. We need alternatives. >Would everything go to >Russia for launch, and depend on an uncertain foreign infrastructure, >or convert part of Canaveral to launch Russian rockets? We don't use Russian rockets; we use Atlas or Titan. Both routinely rebuild their launchers to conform to payload interface requirements and NASA's evaluation of Soyuz as ACRV indicate that using Soyuz with US aerospace standards isn't a problem. As for stability, that isn't seen as a problem since NASA will be using Soyuz for ACRV. >Can you get enough power and life support from Soyuz/Mir for >5-6 people + our experiments? Send them to an industrial space facility. We have build space stations before and replacing Shuttle's limited ability in orbit shouldn't be hard. We already have Spacehab and Spacelab and it shouldn't be hard to add power and facilities to them. Keeping the lab in orbit will allow greater utilization and cut costs even more. 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 23:32:28 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: The Perils of Dante Newsgroups: sci.space Lessons learned from Dante: A) NASA should never work with spools of wire or cable :-) B) The more moving parts, quadruple the chance of something breaking. Hopefully they'll come back next summer and run it without someone spraying lubricants all over the fiber optic cable, or other human intervention. Further, I'd hope they'd eventually work out a package 5 years down the road where they drop the Dante/Carrier combo out of a C-130 and run a TOTALLY hands-off mission as a dry run to Mars. For that matter, they could/should run practice runs on rovers down South. .... I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:08:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Toutatis Images Available Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary ======================= TOUTATIS GIF IMAGES January 4, 1993 ======================= Four radar images of Asteroid 4179 Toutatis have been released and are available in GIF format (GIF89a). The asteroid made a near Earth flyby on December 8, 1992, at a distance of 2.2 million miles. The antennas at the Deep Space Network site in Goldstone, California, were used to bounce radar off of the asteroid to obtain the images. The four images are contained in a single GIF file. These images were scanned in from a photograph and are not the raw data. The caption file accompanying the images is attached below, and the caption file is also embedded in the image. Make sure you are in binary mode when downloading the images, and in ascii mode when downloading the caption files. The Toutatis images are available using anonymous ftp to: ftp: ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) user: anonymous cd: pub/SPACE/GIF files: toutatis.gif - Four views of asteroid 4179 Toutatis toutatis.txt - Caption file ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- toutatis.txt PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011 PHOTO CAPTION (TOP) P-41525 January 4, 1993 Toutatis Radar Images These are radar images of asteroid 4179 Toutatis made during the object's recent close approach to Earth. The images reveal two irregularly shaped, cratered objects about 4 and 2.5 kilometers (2.5 and 1.6 miles) in average diameter which are probably in contact with each other. The four frames shown here (from left to right) were obtained on Dec. 8, 9, 10 and 13 when Toutatis was an average of about 4 million kilometers (2.5 million miles) from Earth. The time required to obtain each of these images was 55, 14, 37 and 85 minutes, respectively. On each day, the asteroid was in a different orientation with respect to Earth. In these images, the radar illumination comes from the top of the page, so parts of each component facing toward the bottom are not seen. The large crater shown in the Dec. 9 image (upper right) is about 700 meters (2,300 feet) in diameter. The radar observations were carried out at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California's Mojave desert by a team led by Dr. Steven Ostro of JPL. For most of the work, a 400,000-watt coded radio transmission was beamed at Toutatis from the Goldstone main 70-meter (230-foot) antenna. The echoes, which took as little as 24 seconds to travel to Toutatis and back, were received by the new 34-meter (112-foot) antenna and relayed back to the 70-meter station where they were decoded and processed into images. The radar observations were part of the Planetary Astronomy Program of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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 23:08:27 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: UN Space Agency Newsgroups: sci.space I wonder if there is anything in the works for a United Nations Space Agency and if there is, what all does it do?? Russian/American co-working is about time for it.. I wonder if the North American Free-Trade Agreement will lead to US/Canadian/Mexican Space co-working?? == == Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 01:02:16 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: UN Space Agency Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.150827.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >I wonder if there is anything in the works for a United Nations Space Agency Not really. The problem is the "elephant among the chickens" syndrome: the US is logically a major participant in such an effort, but then it wants to run the show, and the other nations involved -- especially the ones which have demonstrated competence of their own -- don't want to just pay the bills for projects they have no say in. Past experience with US involvement in "international" space projects generally has not been happy for the US's "partners". >I wonder if the North American Free-Trade Agreement will lead to >US/Canadian/Mexican Space co-working?? Canada is already a (minor) partner in various aspects of the US space program... but it's also an associate member of the European Space Agency. (It would probably be a full member, were it not for the inconvenient rule that full members must be located in Europe...) Much depends on whether "co-working" means a say in decisions, or just a share in the cost. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:51:12 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan04.205508.23361@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly) >electronics on the ground.... It would be bad. Not necessarily. At least, not if you plan for it. Consider this scenario. You have a battle fleet somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Your enemy has a battle fleet somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Both fleets are looking for one another. Your enemy also has a satellite, which will pass overhead shortly, telling him exactly where you are. Shortly before the satellite gets within detection range of your fleet, you launch an SLBM, taking out your enemy's nice, new, expensive satellite. Both fleets get hit by EMP, but you are prepared because you know it's coming. Your enemy isn't expecting it. Worse, he has all his planes sitting out, exposed, on the flight deck, waiting to launch when the satellite gives him targeting information. If you're lucky, you've taken out all his AEW. This puts you in a very good position.... ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 634 ------------------------------