Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 05:00:15 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #107 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 2 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: Anyone know Freidrich Horz?? Beanstalk Challenger transcript CIS Soyuz TM-15 successfully lands from Mir space station Clinton's email address Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer+ Cost vs. strength of US space program Death and Tragedy Getting supplies to Mars Justification for space program Rent Mir Riding Comets (2 msgs) Shuttle and PC Solar sail Nits Today in 1986 Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (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: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 09:32:41 GMT From: Robert Cocking Subject: Anyone know Freidrich Horz?? Newsgroups: sci.space Does anyone know Freidrich Horz? At one time he worked at the Johnson Space Centre and worked on designs for lunar shelters. Is he on internet? Robert -- __________________________________________________________ ( ) ) Robert Cocking.......robert_cocking@mindlink.bc.ca ( (__________________________________________________________) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 16:31:56 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube x554) Subject: Beanstalk From: Gary Coffman > Yes I knew what you meant Michael. A constant taper beanstalk is beyond > the theoretical strength of materials of anything we have a clue about > producing. A tapered beanstalk is theoretically possible, but would be so > huge that it would be impractical to construct. A very long thread on > this subject occurred here last summer. Does anyone have a WAG as to whether Bucky-tubes might be within an order of magnitude of the required strength ? -- ---------------------------------------------------------- This .sig is at half-mast in consideration for Buffalo's thrice-suffering fans. Hats off to Don Beebe for tackling an overconfident Leit (#78) and preventing records for most turnovers and most points against. Mudville mourns. ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 10:56:17 GMT From: Andy Harp Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro This is just unbelievably sick - unless you have some proof, shut up. Even if you have proof for that matter I don't particularly want to see this sort of sick transcript here - I felt physically sick. Just my 2p Andy -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- aharp@hermes.mod.uk Andrew Harp, DRA Malvern, Gt. Britain harpaj@bham.ac.uk tel : +44 684 894462 harpaj@eee.bham.ac.uk DoD #0737 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 07:53:05 -0800 From: Glenn Chapman Subject: CIS Soyuz TM-15 successfully lands from Mir space station The Soyuz TM-15 flight to the Commonwealth of Independent States Mir complex successfully landed today (Feb 1st) in south central Asia. On board were Anatoli Solovyov and Sergei Avdeyev who have just spent 187 days, in orbit since arriving with a French visitor on July 30. They have been replaced by the new crew, Gennadiy Manakov and Aleksandr Polishchuk, which were launched from the in Soyuz TM-16 on Jan. 24th. One interesting point is that Radio Moscow stated they would be up for 179 days on Mir, which makes their landing date July 24th. In most previous flights the landing date has not been so clearly specified. The replacement crew at that time will include a French visitor, which is now training for the flight. On of the new things Manakov and Polishchuk will be working on is the February test of a 20 metre (65 foot) solar sail. It will be attached to the Progress TM-15 tanker currently at the Mir station, which will be undocked and moved from the station before the sail is deployed. The 3 day mission will permit the solar sail to act like a reflector, generating very a bright light in the sky for a short period of time (1 minute) as seen from the ground, as well as move the Progress tanker with light pressure. Reports say this will be the brightest object in the sky at the times of the tests. (Radio Mosow, SpaceNews Jan. 11, CBC) In other news Russia has announced that a third lander on their 1994 Mars probe has been dropped due to funding problems. The irony is that the third lander was to contain mostly U.S. equipment, and delays in U.S. payments supporting this probe were a significant factor in the cancellation. However the remaining two probes and the rest of the mission is proceeding on schedule. (SpaceNews Jan. 4, 11) NASA/CIS teams have found pleasing results in initial studies on using a modified Soyuz capsule as the Freedom space station's emergency assured crew return vehicles. Over the next year more detailed investigations of the changes needed and launch costs will be done. The U.S. Lockheed Corporation has agreed to market the Proton booster for Russia's Khrunichev Enterprise under the joint Lockheed-Khrunichev International corp. The Proton, a 20 Tonne to orbit booster, is currently produced by Khrunichev at a yearly production rate of 9, which could rise to 18 if needed. Lockheed will market the booster, especially pushing it as a launcher of the Soyuz as Freedom's assured crew return vehicles. Lockheed will also inject $5 million into Khrunichev to maintain the plant. However, while the U.S. State Department gave quick approval to the project, battles broke out with other agencies which wished to stop the project. (AW&ST Jan. 4) The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization is planning to purchase four more Russian Topaz space nuclear reactors, in addition to the two already delivered to the U.S. There is worry though that radiation from the reactors in space will hurt measurements on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. (SpaceNews Jan. 11) Glenn Chapman School Eng. Science Simon Fraser U. Burnaby, B.C., Canada glennc@cs.sfu.ca ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 14:40:46 GMT From: Peter Webb Subject: Clinton's email address Newsgroups: sci.space [ fwd's removed ] Communications Daily, January 19, 1993 CLINTON WHITE HOUSE TO MAKE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY BODY: Carrying through successful campaign operation, Clinton Administration this week will become first White House to set up office dedicated to making official Presidential documents available electronically for widespread distribution. There has been limited distribution of White House press information in past through now-defunct Dialcom, but nothing on scale that Clinton staff is contemplating. Clinton transition effort has named Jonathan Gill as director of Electronic Publishing and Public Access E-Mail. Gill, software developer from Medford, Mass., signed onto Clinton campaign as electronic mail coordinator. He originally worked from home, later moved to Little Rock as demands on system became more intense. At one point, Clinton E-mail operation was answering 5,000 queries daily, most sent out automatically. Gill will work in White House Office of Communications with Jeff Eller, who was named deputy asst. to President and dir.-Media Affairs. Eller is credited with moving electronic computer communications for first time into mainstream of political campaigns. Clinton's address is: 75300.3115@compuserve.com Ramona Curry -- Peter Webb webb@hks.com Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Voice: 401-727-4200 1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860 FAX: 401-727-4208 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 20:50:59 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer Newsgroups: sci.space >Well, the Japanese construction industry thinks it could do >the job for around one billion. A real space station, a la >2001, not a little tin can like SS Freedom. Unfortunately, >Shuttle transportation costs would add another $46 billion >to that. But if you encourage the develop of a commercial >SSTO first.... 46 BILLION DOLLARS???? Good Lord, talk about inflation running amok... -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 09:30:13 GMT From: Carl Hage Subject: Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer+ Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: :Amerina Anyoen Congression Japana Teh alaska alot alreadt aspicies :becomeing commerical compedative dificult dsign elevetor emust geo :gladitor legeslating liek progect sellt teathered ther wher It should be evident that the most serious long term problem facing America is our educational system. If we can't type, spell, formulate grammatically correct sentences, or engage in meaningful discussions, how can we expect anything other than being eclipsed in space technology by other countries? How will we solve a future economic and ecological crisis in an overpopulated, resource depleted world? It also seems like we have lost our pride in quality craftsmanship. I'm amazed to see how much hastily prepared, shoddy workmanship is sent out without even a minimal quality check, particularly when today's technology enables a vast improvement in quality over what was available or practical a few decades ago. During the late 1950s, the "missile gap" and the "I'd rather be dead than red" philosophy motivated the United States to accelerate the development of space technology and improve math and science education. Currently, we are lagging far behind many other countries in basic education. What is there to motivate our country to respond to an impending crisis? Why is there so much whining about Clinton's broken promises less than 10 days after he has been in office? I hope space enthusiasts will help president Clinton and our congress solve the current economic crisis and correct our lagging educational system. Without these problems addressed, our future endeavors in space are sure to fail. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 18:15:53 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Cost vs. strength of US space program >>The Russians alreay have Mir up in space, why not used it to build a >>American/US space station, or build a wing onto Mirt that is for US use.. >>I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the >>wheel is already in Orbit?? Mathew D. answers: >Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and >buy Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result would >be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace industry, >coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line. >The short of the matter is that if all you are concerned with is the >almighty dollar, what you suggest is a good idea. If you are interested >in a strong U.S. space program, however, it's a losing deal. The arguments about this project or that project taking money away from some other project suggest, to me at least, that a cheap program and a strong program are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems that they would be mutually supportive. So maybe the short of it is that if you are only concerned about the almighty dollar (a pejorative phrase that always bugged me. If you have such a problem with dollars, give them to me :-) you are missing the issue, and if you are only concerned with a strong US space program, you are missing the issue. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 14:13:00 GMT From: Roger Wilfong Subject: Death and Tragedy Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Distribution: world Organization: UofM Hospitals Lines: 8 Nntp-Posting-Host: robin.hosp.med.umich.edu X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In Article "jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)" says: > > Anyone who wishes to refute me is welcome to do so. But I'd appreciate it if > someone would remind me which Greek text I was reading. I believe your are refering to Aritsotle's Form for the Poetics. But I'm not a Greek scholar and Great Books was 25 years ago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 18:41:54 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Getting supplies to Mars |> Question what would you use to get it there?? Automated Solar Sail would be |> nice.. Seems you only need rockets and such when you have to get someplace |> quick.. The auto-mission would do surveys of possibel landing/survey sights.. |> Michael Adams >Who needs it? Just beseech THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE to >TRANSENDENTALLY translate the CREW to the appropriate OUTER SPHERE. >Since they'd be in ASTRAL form, they wouldn't need any KIT at all. >I suppose this would mean prior TERMINATION of their CORPOREAL FORMS, >so we should perhaps choose VIRGINS ... >Philip R. Young It would NEVER work. You can't PORK-BARREL something that CHEAP. Besides, what fun is being an ASTRON...I mean ASTRAL-NAUT, if you can't use the PRESTIGE to get laid? :-) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 17:20:45 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Justification for space program Ben Muniz talks about a book... >It's called "Breakout Into Space, Mission for a Generation" by George >Henry Elias. The cover blurb reads in part: "(the book) presents a >broadly, efficiently argued case for moving civilization beyond Earth's >limits and into the solar system. (Elias) explores the environmental, >economic,, and political benefits of space settlement. Inhabiting space >is no longer science fiction, but human necessity - and destiny . . . >The establishment of a space civilization is an essential part of the >effort to preserve the environment, prevent global war, and provide a >stable economic future". >Any comments about the book, either pro or con? Jim O'brien replies: >Don't know anything about the book, but I'll stay stuck to this beautiful >green and blue planet for a while, thank you. I think this is a totally >unrealistic and ridiculous justification for the space program. Pursuit >of basic scientific knowledge should be our focus, at least for the >forseeable future. I'd agree with Jim, in that these are not justifications for spending taxpayer dollars on the space program, which was the original question. But I have to disagree with his point that these things are not valuable goals for any space program. They are valuable, but being valuable is not a sufficient justification for spending other people's money (against their will) on it. This applies to basic science, too, BTW. (I am thinking of science-for-the-sake-of-knowledge in this context. Knowledge-for-the-sake-of-defending-ourselves from asteroids, comets, and ET's I would consider justification.) 'Pursuit of basic scientific knowledge' is a luxury. That's why fire took so long to discover :-). We are at a similar stage of the space program. It costs money to do this exploring, and if we focus for a while on 'not-so-basic' knowledge, for instance, where the cheapest source of space-based metal and volatiles are located, then we will have the resources for basic sci. knowlegde, as well as all the other valuable goals. If Jim thinks these goals are ridiculous or unrealistic, I'd like to know *why* he thinks so, rather than just *that* he thinks so. Consider, Jim, just the effect on the environmental movement of pictures of the planet from space. Now imagine the effect on the environment of putting energy-generation and mining in space, too. Putting the centers of politics and industry in space, as would happen if there ever was a space-based civilization, would leave this blue/green planet much healthier and more enjoyable for those that decide to stay stuck to it. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 08:48:06 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Rent Mir -From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) -Subject: Re: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it. -Date: 28 Jan 93 19:11:32 GMT -In article <1993Jan27.184307.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: ->The Russians alreay have Mir up in space, why not used it to build a ->American/US space station, or build a wing onto Mirt that is for US use.. ->I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the ->wheel is already in Orbit?? -Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better -wheels. Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and -buy Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result would -be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace industry, -coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line. -The short of the matter is that if all you are concerned with is the -almighty dollar, what you suggest is a good idea. If you are interested -in a strong U.S. space program, however, it's a losing deal. -Matthew DeLuca -Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 One thing building SSF by the current plan might help us to learn which is of questionable value is building a large structure in orbit "from scratch", i.e. with no construction shack. If we play our cards right, that particular situation won't come up again. So using Mir as a construction shack for SSF wouldn't hurt our learning curve significantly. And it could save significantly on the effort and the contingency requirements for the first several launches before SSF is habitable. Unfortunately, it may be too close to scheduled launch for switching to that plan to bring any significant savings in time or money. It still might be worth at least considering the tradeoffs. (As I've mentioned before, it is possible to start construction at Mir's orbit, then change the orbit to 28.5 degree inclination if that's what we want.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 15:06:31 GMT From: David Toland 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. Another idea would be to place a spacecraft on Halleys comet, or somethign else that flies by the earth frequently. That way, on its voyage out, it could take many many observations, without warrying about propulsion, OR sending data back to earth. Once the comet comes close to the earth, optical communications could take place, and all data collected could be transmitted to earth, AND any power the probe/spacecraft had lost could be transmitted to the probe. ..getting to the comet/asteroid is another problem.. ] Sorry, this doesn't help you. To land on the body, you have to match its velocity, so at that point, why land. Indeed, it would take far more fuel than simply injecting into an orbit that would take you directly where you wish to go. The only advantage would be if you were to utilize the substance of the body somehow (fuel, air, etc.) so you didn't have to carry them while matching the orbit. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's. det@phlan.sw.stratus.com | "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash | that doon with." ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 93 16:19:58 GMT From: Christopher Neufeld Subject: Riding Comets Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1kje9nINNmbl@transfer.stratus.com> somebody@somehost.edu writes: >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? > >The only advantage would be if you were to utilize the substance of >the body somehow (fuel, air, etc.) so you didn't have to carry them >while matching the orbit. > One way it could help is to provide your storm cellar. Instead of launching all the radiation shielding you need in order to survive a solar flare on the trip to Mars, find a big, convenient rock going your way, match orbits, and if the sun starts to behave in an unfriendly manner, just move into the shade of the rock until the storm passes. This is similar to the concept of a cycling station, a large ship which continuously runs a tranfer orbit between two bodies. It has closed life support, shielding, and other stuff which would be expensive or inefficient to launch for each trip. People making the trip are accelerated to matching orbits in bare-bones capsules, with the only mass being that of the passenger and the average materials loss replacement per passenger for the station. Saves you a lot of mass moving. Of course, a Hohmann transfer ellipse from the earth to Mars does not have an orbital period which makes this convenient. Your station tends to bounce around between unoccupied parts of the planets' orbits most of the time, unless you can modify your orbit somehow, probably by a solar sail, since it's cheap in reaction mass, and is incorporated in the already huge cost of this gigantic object. The sail at normal incidence lets you change the effective mass of the primary (the sun), effectively adjusting your orbital period, even if it is too ungainly to trim the sails extensively for a conventional solar sail trajectory. Further, if the sail is unfurled at the earth, the delta-v to rendezvous can be smaller, since the tangential velocity of the sail/station at earth orbit can be below that needed for a Hohmann orbit around our sun. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Everyone talks about neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra | apathy, but no one does utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld | anything about it. "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 19:32:17 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Shuttle and PC Tesuji wrote: T> A secret NASA tape reveals that the crew of the shuttle Challenger T> not only survived the explosion that ripped the vessel apart; they T> screamed, cried, cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before T> they slammed into the Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986. [some bits deleted] T. Tyler replies: >Well, that and the rest of that post was certainly the most tasteless >thing I've seen here in ages... At least now we know what the impetus was behind the accused PC teachers referred to long ago. They probably thought children talking about violent death was tasteless. (Those kids must have been master comic- book hiders :-) Maybe the transcript was true, maybe it wasn't. But someone asked about it, and Tesuji posted with what could be found. (I've seen the exact text posted here before, for the same reasons) That's what this list is for, isn't it? (Personally, I think the really tasteless stuff is McElwaine's. Not because it's silly, or whatever, but because it's so long! And he reposts it! I mean, how much damage can you really do with words, except for overloading mailers?) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 19:49:05 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Solar sail Nits >>Yep ... you simply turn it around and use it to capture the *outward* solar >>wind of your destination star to slow you down. >Solar sails do NOT use the solar wind. They run on light pressure. Further nit: If light has momentum and protons have a wavelength, how do you classify one as wind and not the other? They are both "stuff emitted from the sun at supersonic velocities" after all. (Yes, I know the light gives greater momentum, and that the def. of solar wind is "Protons from the sun". But it is a rather arbitrary def., isn't it?) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 93 18:02:23 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Today in 1986 Well, not actually today... I was a freshman here at MSU (cut me some slack. I dropped out for a couple years, now going 1/2 time or less, depending on $$ :-) Got back from class, and some pals were watching the launch. We were all pretty stunned when it blew up. Some thoughts that ran through my head were "That's the risk required for actual exploration" and "Damned shame that it had to happen to the first civilian" and "Why do they keep showing it over and over?" On a less-painful note, the next time I went home, I saw my old high-school science teacher, Tom Tuttle, who had applied to be in McAuliffe's (sp?) place that day. I asked him how the event affected his desire. He told me he'd go up in a minute, despite the risk, and he'd seen proof of that risk! I hope Christa felt the same way. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 20:50:26 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle >Even more errie, in December 1985 (around the 28th or 29th) I had this >dream about a shuttle catching fire (flames spewing out of one of the >boosters) and seeing it on TV just before it exploded. The name clearly >visible on the orbiter just before fade out was 'Challenger'. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about premonition, but here is one possible explanation. On December 28, 1985, the last Shuttle launch that you could have seen and seen the name of the Shuttle clearly would have been Challenger's STS-61A mission two months earlier. Atlantis flew in November, but it was a night launch, and thus harder to identify. Then again, any dream about a Shuttle disaster had a one in four chance of being Challenger. I'll admit to having had more than one nightmare about another Shuttle disaster, but I think these were all before Discovery flew STS-26. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 20:49:23 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle >On the other hand, >organizational reform has been incomplete, as evidenced by the Hubble >problems and the current, ongoing troubles with the GOES-NEXT program. Both of which took place BEFORE the Challenger disaster. NASA deserves blame for these fiascos, but most of those involved left NASA long before these troubles came to light. It's a pity that the folks there today have to take the blame for screwups a decade earlier. The changes and improvements that Goldin has implemented won't start to show up for several more years, at which time someone like Bill Nelson will happily take the credit for it. Gag. -Brian ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 107 ------------------------------