Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 05:00:09 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #105 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 1 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN ** A challenge of the alledged "Challenger transcript" Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling (2 msgs) Challenger transcript (3 msgs) Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field IRAS - 10 Years Ago ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company (2 msgs) Making Orbit 93 - Collected Papers Available Microgravity Research Today Riding Comets Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (4 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: 31 Jan 93 22:15:39 GMT From: Jack Coyote Subject: ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN ** Newsgroups: sci.space In sci.space, lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes: >Does anybody here know what the state of interstellar hydrogen is? IE, >is it molecular or atomic? From fair to hazy recollection of my ISM class: Phase T(K) Density (#/cc) Composition "Hot" ISM 10^6 .01 (?) Ionized H (H II) "Warm" ISM 10^4 .1 - 1 H II "Cool" ISM 100 1 - 100 Atomic H (H I) Dark Cloud 3 - 10 10^3 - 10^6 Molecular H2 In general, these can be thought of as non-mixing types. The central cold cloud of molecular hydrogen condenses a "cool" shell, which condenses a "warm" shell from the general "hot" ISM. Space filling is approx: Hot: 50% Warm: 30% Cold: 19% Other: 1% Again, all of this is from memory. For accurate numbers, try _Astrophysics II: Interstellar Matter and Galaxies_, Bowers & Deeming, (Jones & Bartlett),1984 ISBN 0-86720-047-2, or _Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium_, Spitzer, (Wiley & Sons), 1978, ISBN 0-471-02232-2. Michael Kellen -- "Pound for pound, lame puns are your best entertainment value." -- Gogo Dodo ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 21:54:29 GMT From: Richard D Pierce Subject: A challenge of the alledged "Challenger transcript" Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro The first place I saw this transcipt printed was in, I believe, the National Enquirer over two years ago. I fear that this alone leads to a serious questioning of the validity of the transcript, but we'll ignore that point. The N. E. transcript differed in some ways from one posted here. For example, one of the voices was alledged to say something like "Can't breath... no air" and then the rest of the crew goes on talking. There's some serious problems with that. All indications are that the crew cabin lost pressure quickly (and that would certainly be supported by the alledged quote above). This would lead to several things that would contradict the validity of the transcript. First, at those altitudes, conciousness would be, to put it mildly, brief. So given that, it would be doubtful that anyone was awake to talk. But let's ignore that, for the purpose of argument. There is a second problem: At those altitudes, how much air is available for the propogation of sound? Probably not much, but it would be interesting to figure it out. A third problem: the entire forward fuselage of the Challenger separated relatively cleanly from the payload bay, but what was left was undoubtedly far from aerodynamically clean. As such, whistling through whatever air there was (and there was certainly a lot more as it approached the ocean), I would suspect the level of aerodynamic noise was pretty spectacular and would have provided pretty fierce competition for someone trying (even in panic) to talk. The whole issue of impact velocity is something which is easy to resolve and, such being the case, provides a fourth serious problem for the claims. Let's take the impact time of 3 minutes after destruction as reasonably accurate. The failure took place around (as I recall) 42,000 feet at a speed of about mach 2. A first order guess at what the trajectory looked like (granted simplifying things such as estimated mass and effective drag and so on) leads to a conclusion far different than a 2000 mph impact velocity. Making the assumptions that the crew cabin has about 1/4 the mass of the entire orbiter (or about 17000 kg), that it has an airframe diameter of 6 meters and it has a drag coefficient of about 0.3 (probably a little low, given it was probably tumbling a bit and dragging lots of stuff, this is supprted by the fact that it di not hit nose-first, with the impact being, I believe, well to the left of center), and plugging it into a simulation that accounts for the the velocity and altitude components of drag, we find that the crew cabin probably continued to rise for about 25 seconds until it reached about 17,000 m (55,000 feet), though it had decelerated to subsonic speeds quickly (in maybe 5 seconds, it's greatest acceleration, about 12 G, of the whole trip). It then reached its maximum downward velocity of about 190 m/s (about 420 mph) at about 13,000m (or 40,000 feet) from there its velocity slowed as it encountered denser and denser air. The model predicts impact about 160 seconds after breakup at a terminal velocity of about 100 m/s, or 225 mph. A figure of 2000 mph requires completely implausible numbers for the crew cabin mass, drag and a whole range of other numbers. Well, my model could be wrong. For example, I could have underestimated the mass of the forward fuselage and overestimated the drag coefficient. I don't think I am off by any more than a combined factor of 2 (although I would certainly appreciate some correction by Henry Spencer or anyone else who might know better). Look at the mass estimate as one example. The center of lift for the wings is well aft of the fore-aft geometrical center of the entire shuttle, yet it flies reasonably well, suggesting most of the mass is in the tail. So, I may well have overestimated the mass. I am unable to find a solution, given some probably reasonable assumptions about the aerodynamic conditions of the front fuselage, that can in anyway come up with an impact velocity of 2000 mph 3 minutes after breakup. I believe, then, that this 2000 mph number is a complete fantasy. And from the rest of the above challenges to the assertions of the alledged transcript, it's hard for me to accept the rest of the story as nothing other than fabrication. And if it isn't, so what. The JAL 747 that lost its tail section on takeoff and then wandered all of Japan (about 8 years ago?) for 20 minutes or so before crashing was in evry way an equal or greater tragedy. Here, the entire crew and all the passengers were acutely aware thet they were doomed. Many are known to have written letters and made recordings to their loved ones. Should the contents of those letters and tapes be made public? -- | Dick Pierce | | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting | | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 | | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) | ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 16:02:47 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan30.202454.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: > >One benefit of space research is a possible self recycling of home sewage.. Why >must the home send all its sewage farther than its own sewage recycling tank.. >Where most or all the water is pressed out, and the solid waste is then taken >away.. The water being used again.. Or am I to wierd.. > Two comments on this. First of all, you have an economy of scale as far as a single sewage treatment plant is concerned. Even pressing out the water, treating and reusing it again takes space. Imagine large skyscrapers doing it? SEcdonly, where you do have the room, like in the country, something similar is done currently: septic tanks and leaching fields. Now, in a proper leaching field your field is located downhill from your well, but eventually the water inthe field leaches out and makes it down to the water table one way or another. At my dad's house when I was mowing the lawn, I could always tell where the leaching field was. Erma Bomback was only partly right, the grass is always greener (and thicker I might add) over the leaching field. >== > Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu > Im not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 16:01:51 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan30.202454.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: > >One benefit of space research is a possible self recycling of home sewage.. Why >must the home send all its sewage farther than its own sewage recycling tank.. >Where most or all the water is pressed out, and the solid waste is then taken >away.. The water being used again.. Or am I to wierd.. Not weird, you just described a home septic tank system, though instead of pressing out the water, gravity is allowed to do the separation. The solids remain in the settling tank and the liquid is recycled as lawn fertilizer via the drain field. No moving parts, low cost, low tech, and there were millions in use before the first space shot. Every few years you have the settling tank pumped out by a truck and the residue carted away for use as farm fertilizer. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 15:15:35 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993Jan29.230817.9765@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (Tesuji) writes: >cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before they slammed into the >Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986. > > The tape is said to begin with a startled crewman screaming,"What happened? >What happened? Oh God - No!" Screams and curses are heard- several crewmen >begin to weep- and then others bid their families farewell. > > Two minutes forty-five seconds later the tape ends. That's when the shuttles ... >T+3:15 to end. None. Static, silence. If the explosion is at one minute plus, then the cabin takes three minutes to fall, then the crash is at about four minutes? Does the tape indicate nothing said for the last half minute or so? >Atlantic, hit the ocean at over 2,000 miles per hour, instantly killing the Umm, wasn't it pretty established that impact was at 217 mph or thereabouts? That is consistent with the pictures of the cabin as it was pulled from the water. The tiles and structure did not look like they had hit at thousands of mph. This was a hollow airframe and had a low terminal velocity. tombaker ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 18:52:48 GMT From: John F Carr Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the credibility of this? I won't comment on the alleged tape transcript, but I thought the crew capsule hit the water at far less than the claimed 2000 mph. 3 minutes should be long enough to reach terminal velocity, which I would expect to be subsonic. -- John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 20:24:01 GMT From: "John S. Neff" Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1kh760INN4b@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) >Subject: Re: Challenger transcript >Date: 31 Jan 1993 18:52:48 GMT > >Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the >credibility of this? > >I won't comment on the alleged tape transcript, but I thought the crew >capsule hit the water at far less than the claimed 2000 mph. 3 minutes >should be long enough to reach terminal velocity, which I would expect to be >subsonic. > > > >-- > John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu) Recall that during the investigation of the accident that reporters and members of the comission were provided with back channel information from astronauts, NASA employees, and contractors. If such a transcript existed at that time the probability is very high that it would have been leaked. My guess is that the transcript is bogus. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 22:05:03 GMT From: Bill Hyde Subject: Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.space In article , btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes: |> |> where |> m = molecule mass = 5.31e-23 g (O2, for example) |> T = temperature = 250K (Why not?) A good characteristic temperature for the exosphere (the "escape zone" of the atmosphere") is about 600K. This is mostly caused by high energy UV. If Ted's saturn/star were very red, perhaps a lower value could be used, but since human eyes are adapted to the current solar spectrum I doubt he'd use that argument. The escape velocity you've caluculated is lower than that for mars. Despite being cooler than earth, and having once had an atmosphere/hydrosphere, the surface pressure on mars is about 10 mb. In Ted's scenario earth would lose its atmosphere far more rapidly than mars lost its. Bill Hyde Department of Oceanography Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 19:32:58 GMT From: Angelo Campanella Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Ron Balke's resume of IRAS is a good reminder of the future of astronomy. From a crass point of view, I say that the IRAS data and all the leads into new astronomical investigations assure the job security for astronomers throughout the 21st century! Seriously, I feel the the true impact has yet to be felt in the astronomy community, chiefly because of the gross vested interest in visual optical equipment, facilities and personnel. That is, astronomy bureaucrats, virtually all products of the visual (1/3 to 2/3 micrometers wavelength) technology absolutely will not pay homage to this upstart and largely foreign technology, akin to the anethma of ancient Galileo. At the ASA meeting in Columbus, last summer, after beimg assured by my (visual) astronomer friend that 'little' was going on in infrared astronomy, I saw at least a half-dozen poster papers on infrared investigations. They featured the synergistic combination of infrared and visual astronomy, i.e. looking at prominent infrared objects identified via the coarse resolution of the IRAS survey. They correlated much finer detail infrared imagery with coincident visual obejcts. Payoffs lay in the increased liklihood of identifying planetary systems among stars. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 14:11:06 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company Newsgroups: sci.space #315 ACAD3A::FSRRC Sun 31 Jan 1993 00:26:05 ( 39/ 2385) Here is the 'postcard': SPACE COLONIZATION Are you keen? Do you want to go? Are you frustrated with the slow pace? If so ISECCo was created with you in mind! The International Space Exploration and Colonization Company (ISECCo) is a certified non-profit organization doing space oriented research and development. We are concentrating on realistic goals, with dreams that extend far into the 22nd century. To turn dreams into reality we need your support. Opening up the final frontier requires the concerted efforts of all involved. If you are interested: Get Involved. ISECCo's first major project is a closed ecological life support system (commonly known as a biosphere) designed to support 1-2 people. Our "garden in a house" is named Nauvik for the Eskimo word meaning nurturing place. Construction on Nauvik began in 1989. Once complete, we will use it to develop the technology of biologically closed systems, with space applications in mind. A prototype for ecological systems in space, it is the launch pad for human life support. Since founding ISECCo in 1988 we have emphasized developing critical biosphere components such as hydroponics and aquaculture. We continue to gain the experience necessary to build a successful biosphere with these on-going experiments. We are primarily supported by donations of time and money from our members. Our president covers all operating expenses. Since the majority of our labor is volunteer, your donations are spent only on projects, not payroll or overhead. For those who want to direct their money toward specific projects we offer that option. Future funding will be supplemented through venture capital, grants, and companies wishing to operate in space. Space colonies are feasible with today's technology. Tomorrow's technology will make them economically viable. Help us turn today into tomorrow and start mankind on the ultimate migration: to the stars! For more information, to join, or to send a donation, please respond to ISECCo, Department PC-V, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks AK 99706. Though not required, a business-sized, self-addressed, stamped envelope will expedite our response. (Address is FSRRC@acad3.alaska.edu) Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:06:51 GMT From: Herman Rubin Subject: ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan31.061106.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >#315 ACAD3A::FSRRC Sun 31 Jan 1993 00:26:05 ( 39/ 2385) > SPACE COLONIZATION > Are you keen? Do you want to go? Are you frustrated with >the slow pace? If so ISECCo was created with you in mind! I agree with the goal, BUT ... > The International Space Exploration and Colonization Company >(ISECCo) is a certified non-profit organization doing space >oriented research and development. We are concentrating on >realistic goals, with dreams that extend far into the 22nd >century. To turn dreams into reality we need your support. >Opening up the final frontier requires the concerted efforts of >all involved. If you are interested: Get Involved. > ISECCo's first major project is a closed ecological life >support system (commonly known as a biosphere) designed to >support 1-2 people. Our "garden in a house" is named Nauvik for >the Eskimo word meaning nurturing place. If this is the way you are starting, I do not see it as even necessarily being in the right direction. The effects of low or no gravity are likely to be more important than the losses from a biosphere. And these losses are going to be of a totally different nature, and require totally different technology, out in space than on earth with the presence of a dense and biologically active surrounding. I submit that the necessary experimentation needs to be done out there, and that little we do in the biosphere direction on earth is likely to be worth much. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:33:32 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Making Orbit 93 - Collected Papers Available Newsgroups: sci.space This message is a repeat announcement of the availability of collected papers from the "Making Orbit 93" conference held in Berkeley in mid January, 1993. To get the collected papers at the pre-publication price requires an immediate order. Bill Nicholls will be organizing and producing a collection of papers given at the conference. To quote Bill: "This is intended to be a best efforts collection of electronic and written materials for sale subsequent to the conference.... Availability of the final product is 2 to 3 months after the conference. While we plan to incorporate photos taken at the conference and any available transcripts, I want to make it clear that we do not expect to have a complete record of the conference, especially the panel sessions. Any profits from sale of the "Collected Papers" will be returned to Henry's [Vanderbilt, not Spencer] SPACE ACCESS organization." The pre-publication price for the collected papers is $15 US. To order, send money, name, and address to: Bill Nicholls PO Box 28 Roy, WA 98580 The order form that I have in front of me indicates that the deadline for orders at the pre-publication price is January 31, 1993 (ie. don't waste any longer to order). Cheques can be made out to Bill Nicholls. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For those not familiar with the nature of the conference, the material below may be helpful: The "Making Orbit 93" conference was held in Berkeley over the January 16 weekend. I had a great time, learned much, and met many people who I knew by reputation or E-mail, but whom I had never met. The total attendance might have been something like 75 or 100 - small enough so that meaningful discussions could be held. The conference was about 75% rocket science (focusing on alternatives to the Shuttle and conventional launchers for reaching orbit), and about 25% science fiction (including the participation of both Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle). Congratulations are due to David and Terry Berry who organized the conference, and to Henry Vanderbilt who organized the program. For those not familiar with the content of the conference from pre-conference publicity, I reproduce below some of the titles of talks: Alternative SSTO Design Approaches - Jurmaine (General Dynamics) Clementine (lunar survey spacecraft) - Kare Delta Clipper - Gaubatz (head of McDonnell-Douglas SSRT program) The "Frequent Flyer" Space Plane Project - Gary Hudson (orbital launch via a composite spaceplane) The Japanese Mars Program - Shimizu (mars probes) Laser Launch - Kare Perestroika in the US Space Industry - Can Commercial Activity Take up the Slack - Bennett Power for Lunar Surface Applications - Mayer Rocket Science for Amateurs - Cobb, Vanderbilt Soviet/CIS Space Launcher Characteristics - Bozlee Space Launch by Gas Gun - Hunter Space Policy 2000 Prime - Graham The SSTO Operational Environment - Stine (economics etc.) A Storable Propellant SSTO - Burnside Clapp In addition to these talks, there were numerous panel discussions. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:56:00 GMT From: Venkatraman Chandrasekaran Subject: Microgravity Research Today Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.bio,sci.materials,sci.space There is an article on microgravity materials processing in the January issue of Ceramic Industry. The article is mainly on the U.S Microgravity Lab shuttle mission with Bonnie J. Dunbar as the payload commander. The article also features an interview with her. - chandra chancy@bank.ecn.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 93 22:24:28 GMT From: "Robert F. Casey" Subject: Riding Comets Newsgroups: sci.space In article aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford) writes: >What is the possibility of creating a craft that could land on either a near >earth asteroid, or a comet, and hitch a ride? From what I have heard, comets >and the likes travel at impressive speeds, which would be a great way to conserve energy on a deep space mission. Landing on a comet that is passing through the solar >sytem, on its way into deep space would be a great way to get out, without >having to use all the energy for propulsion. You'll still need to propell your spacecraft to match speeds and orbits of the comet you want to hitch a ride on. Or else you'll just get a collision and a destroyed spacecraft if you don't match speeds within, what, a few meters a second at most? Objects move around at sppeds of several miles a second. With orbital paths on the order of a billion miles long, this high speed isn't apparent. Hitching a ride makes sense in environments with friction around, like a diver grabbing the dorsal fin of a friendly dolphin. But there is no friction of this sort in space. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 21:54:10 GMT From: Russ Forster Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Where was I when the shuttle blew up? I was at work. I remember a college coming in and telling me. I just couldn't believe it. I worked at a community college then and the only TV was in our TV studio. I remember going there and watching in disbelief on a 6'' BW monitor. This was the first launch I had not watched live on TV but I had set my VCR to record the event. After watching it at work, I went home and watched CNN as they replayed the launch over and over again. I then watch my tape to see it for the 'first time' and listened to the commentary. The one thing I didn't do and still regret is saving that tape. I will never forget that day. To this day, I watch or tape every launch, I had the greatest thrill by seeing STS-52? launch in October when I was on vacation. I will never forget this day either. To this day, my heart pounds when I hear 'Go for throttle-up' -- Regards, Russ Forster (postmaster), Sr. Technical Analyst, MultiVendor Group BC Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., V8X 4S8 Internet: RForster@Galaxy.Gov.BC.CA Phone: (604) 389-3186 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1993 13:13:15 -0600 From: Robert Fentiman Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <1993Jan28.010055.1691@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > >Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST.... > >So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place? I was twelve years old and home from school, sick, and watching the launch on "live" TV. I always get excited about shuttle launches (It's been my dream from age 3 to be an astronaut, you can even ask my mom). I wathced the shuttle clear the tower, thinking to myself that someday I'd be doing something like that. NASA's announcer was reading off data. All I could see was the smoke trail. I then heard the words "Go for throttle up". The announcer kept reading data, I noticed the odd shape of the smoke trail, but thought nothing of it at first, just had a strange feeling in the back of my head. A couple seconds later, I started to get a sinking feeling in my stomach. I was devistated when they officially said something was wrong. I think my mom was concerned later because she knew how much I wanted to be an astronaut. Somehow, though, the accident made me re-affirm my commitment to try my hardest to do so. Hopefully I'm on the right path now - first year at college and going for a major in physics (to be folled by a master's degree in Astonomy or Astrophysics, and hopefully a Doctorate). Thanks Robert Fentiman InterNet: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu At: University of Minnesota, Duluth ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 22:53:40 GMT From: THIS SPACE FOR RENT Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > and then figure out what happened, fix it, and carry on flying. If > an astronaut dies, the entire program comes to a screeching halt for > two or three years, and no sacrifice of schedules, usefulness, or > customers is too great to ensure it doesn't happen again. Except > that it will anyway, no matter how badly you cripple the program > in the name of safety, unless you ground the thing permanently. > > If we are ever to have routine spaceflight -- the sort that might > get you or me up there -- this absolutely requires tolerance for the > occasional crash, especially during a new vehicle's early test > period... that is, its first (say) 100 flights. If your response > to thinking about Challenger is "never again!", you are part of the > problem, not part of the solution. > > When you remember Challenger, remember also that the devastating > effect it had on the space program was unnecessary and unwarranted. > -- > "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry > The grounding of the shuttle fleet after the Challenger was a very serious blow to the space program. About the only thing I can think of that would have been worse would be pressing on and then having another shuttle blow up two months later because they hadn't figured out the problem yet. As for people who say "never again" being part of the probelm, I accept that deaths are inevitable in space exploration, but I think we _must_ say "never again" to deaths caused by managers who don't want to hear bad news. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1993 15:34 PST From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In an attempt to put a slight positive glimmer on this otherwise depressing subject...5 months after the loss of Challenger, at my graduation from MIT, on what was an otherwise miserable day (it was pouring and the graduation was held outside!), the president of MIT, Paul Grey, in his address, announced that they were renaming the Center for Space Research after Ron McNair, who had received his doctorate in physics from MIT. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Horowitz | Astronomy Department |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?" California Institute of Technology |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs" irwin@iago.caltech.edu | ih@deimos.caltech.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 105 ------------------------------