Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 05:00:07 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #219 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 24 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 219 Today's Topics: Aurora (rumors) (3 msgs) Aurora and SR-71 phaseout Canadian SSF effort ?? Flight sim books Fred is Dead! Long Live the Space Station! Getting people into Space Program! (2 msgs) Nobody cares about Fred? (3 msgs) Regularly updated Weather images ... help with HDF format? Shuttle refueling Shuttle refueling was(Re: Sabatier Reactors.) SSTO/DC-X GIFs Stars in space pictures? Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? (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, 22 Feb 1993 18:24:37 -0500 From: Lawrence Curcio Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space Uh, it may be fast and all but, uh, what good is an audible spy plane? There. I asked it and I'm glad! -Larry C. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 93 21:44:18 GMT From: Tracy Ratcliff Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb22.033706.8373@Princeton.EDU> jdunning@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes: > >The latest issue of _Popular Science_ (March or April, I think) has a >cover story about "Aurora." . . . The part of the article that intrigued me is the sketch of the 'Mother Ship'. It's described as a cross between an SR-71 and an XB-70, with a large flat dorsal area, apparently for carrying an air-launched vehicle of some kind. What could you do with a 'mother ship' vehicle capable of Mach 3? I get to read _Popular Science_ every month, but I don't keep up with the more technical magazines on aerospace, so if this has been discussed to death there or in some other net.newsgroup, my apologies. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 17:37:53 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) From "New Scientist", 21 March 1992 "Blackbird comes back in spaceplane test", Dan Charles, Washington DC The retired SR-71 Blackbird spy plane has become a flying test-bed for the National Aerospace Plane being developed by NASA. The NASP is designed to take off from runways on Earth and fly into orbit at speeds of up to Mach 15. NASA engineers will soon begin experiments to see if igniting hydrogen in the air behind the NASP will help to push it through the sound barrier. The approach, called "external burning", is supposed to reduce aerodynamic drag. The experiments will be carried out on SR-71 aircraft that NASA received from the US Air Force last year. The aircraft can cruise at Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound, and were once sent on spy flights along the borders of the Soviet Union and over Cuba. The SR-71 will carry a half-scale model of the back end of the prototype NASP mounted above its fuselage on a two-meter-long pylone. Hydrogen released from 19 small nozzles on the model will be ignited in flight. Sensors will record the pressure and temperature of the air behind the model. External burning is one approach to solving one of the most important aerodynamic problems for the NASP: the "base drag" that results from the large surface area of its back end. This large surface comes into its own at speeds above Mach 3, when large amounts of exhaust gas from the plane's engines push against the entire surface, producing thrust. At lower speeds, however, there is not enough fuel burnt in the engines to pressurise the whole area. Pocket of low pressure form at the back of the aircraft, producing drag. John Hicks, a manager for the NASP project, says that around the speed of sound the drag is so severe that it would prevent the NASP from ever breaking the sound barrier. Burning hydrogen in the air behind the aircraft as it accelerates from Mach 0.8 to Mach 3 will produce extra pressure in this region and overcome the drag, says Hicks. Experiments in wind tunnels have already demonstrated that external burning can be effective. Don Lux, of NASA, who is helping to prepare the test flights, says that the experiments with the SR-71 are designated to see if the hydrogen can be ignited reliably. "At a thousand miles per hour, you can imagine, it's not like flicking on a lighter," he says. Heating produced by friction with the air has complicated preparation for the experiment, says Lux. At Mach 3, the leading edge of the model during the NASA experiments will be heated to 345 degrees C. This has meant using durable and expensive materials, including special wiring with insulation that will not melt. (end of article) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now a couple of questions about Aurora: 1. If the reported sightings are correct, Aurora is "large and primarily delta shaped". It has probably big engines since it goes at Mach 6-8 (if it exists). Could Aurora have the same "base drag" problem as the NASP ? 2. If yes, how did Skunk Works solve this problem ? Is it conceivable that they did not give the solution to these poor people who are working hard at Ames-Dryden ? 3. If there were no Aurora, could the SR-71 produce the "airquakes" reported in the Los Angeles area ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 93 23:12:00 GMT From: Donald A Martin Subject: Aurora and SR-71 phaseout Newsgroups: sci.space ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the SR-71 phaseout: Gee, doesn't anyone believe satellites can do the same job as the SR-71, if not better? I Do ................................................................ Not! ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1993 21:12:34 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Canadian SSF effort ?? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: >impure. The present situation has a similar feel, as if the >main thing that Clinton has against SSF is that Reagan and >Bush supported it. It's long term politics. Between SSF (redesign mark 4?) and the SooperDooper collider, there's a lot of money going to Texas. One cannot easily kill a pig who hath sipped from the magik trough! I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:57:59 GMT From: Michael Lewis Subject: Flight sim books Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.dsp,comp.graphics,comp.lang.idl,comp.lang.idl-pvwave,sci.space,sci.image.processing,comp.soft-sys.matlab Can anyone point out some good (any) books on flight simulation. I'm in the process of writing a flight sim but need to know about the design aspects of creating a flight simulator. -- Michael Lewis Unix Systems Lehman Brothers Inc. 388 Greenwich St. 11th Floor, NY NY 10013 Email: mlewis@shearson.com voice: 212-464-3389 pager: 212-812-9505 pin#70737 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:03:41 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Fred is Dead! Long Live the Space Station! Newsgroups: sci.space clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: Both sets of >'s >> P.S. I must admit, one thing I have against Fred is the way it looks. >> It just doesn't look like a space station. (Nor does the shuttle >> look like a rocket ship). >I strongly believe that in good engineering, form follows function. >If a device does not look right, then either >a. it has the wrong function, it does not work as desired, or >b. it is poorly engineered I agree to some extent, but not completly. I'm reminded of a great Volkswagen add in the issue of "Life" that covered Apollo 11. It had a simple picture of the LEM and the caption "It's ugly, but it gets you there." Remeber that even if Von Braun, Willey Ley and others may have been visionaries, but they didn't imagine composites or microcomputers and they didn't know much about hypersonic flight, nuclear propulsion or a thousand other things. Their pictures may be great art, but they probably aren't great engineering. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. In memoria, WDH ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:25:29 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1m8q61INNmh9@access.digex.com>, prb@access (Pat) writes: > >Seriously. My point was that the X-15 was qualifying astronauts >at a rate that I think the SHuttle only passed recently. I just checked the list of all 199 missions flown by the X-15 between 1959 and 1968. X-15 pilots in order of first flight and (1) affiliation, (2) number of flights, and (3) number of flights over 250,000 feet. A. Scott Crossfield NAA 14 0 Joseph A. Walker NASA 25 3 Robert M. White USAF 16 1 Forrest S. Petersen USN 16 0 John B. McKay NASA 29 3 Robert A. Rushworth USAF 34 1 Neil A. Armstrong NASA 7 0 Joe H. Engle USAF 16 3 Milton O. Thompson NASA 14 0 William J. Knight USAF 16 2 William H. Dana NASA 16 5 Michael J. Adams USAF 7 1 ---------------------------------- 199 19 ---------------------------------- Of 12 X-15 pilots, it appears that 8 earned astronaut wings. --- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 21:41:45 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1m8q61INNmh9@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Feb20.021711.11882@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>In article <1m3fc4INNhq7@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>> >>>No, the 15 was orbital, but it could and did cross the "Space" > s/was/wasn't/ (typo folks) >>>boundary on numerous missions. It had an operational >>>level good enough that it could almost fly military Missions. >>>If you had a missile or platform you wanted to carry up that >>>high. >> >>Whoa. The X-15 didn't have provision for internal or external >>missile stores. No hardpoints, no bay. The X-15 could reach >>350,000 feet, but it couldn't *do* anything up there. It was >>strictly a hypersonic research vehicle. >> >Most Military aircraft dont have weapons until one is designed >for it. Hardpoints are only part of the issue. control systems >need to be built and weapons dynamics have to be tested. >Somehow I figured, that if someone wanted badly enough to >put a sensor or weapon onto the X-15, the engineering would >not be implausible. Somehow, I doubt designing a hard point >would have been beyond the design team. Most modern military combat aircraft are best appreciated as an envelope designed around a particular set of weapons systems. The skinless F-86 at the Air Force Museum highlights this very well. The X-15 was designed without provision for internal stores, and without provision for external structural hardpoints. Adding either of these is not simply a matter of tacking them on. Mass distribution and balance of the vehicle would be highly impacted by carrying stores. Also, hypersonic weapons release from a hardpoint has never been demonstrated. Some designers seem to think it's a very difficult problem. The closest thing, a SR-71 launched drone, turned out to be a hard enough problem that the drones were refitted to B-52 under wing launching. Redesigning the X-15 to be a weapons delivery platform would result in a vehicle with only a vague resemblance to the X-15 rather than being a simple modification. It would be sort of like modifying your car by jacking up the radiator cap and driving a new car under it. >Seriously. My point was that the X-15 was qualifying astronauts >at a rate that I think the SHuttle only passed recently. X-15 made something under 200 flights, many with the same pilot, and not all X-15 flights were for altitude, many were speed runs. I had a listing around here somewhere of X-15 pilots who received astronaut wings but I can't find it right now. I recall the number was under a dozen. 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: 22 Feb 1993 21:05:10 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , umandru1@umanitoba.ca (John Andrusiak) writes: >In fact, materials engineering seems to be a better understood science >that software engineering, if only because materials engineering has been >around longer. Software engineering yahhh... Kinda like "military intelligence" hmmm? I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:11:02 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb22.151829.10787@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >In article <18FEB199318361759@judy.uh.edu> >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >> There is a great >> deal of difference in just being up there to fly the flag and going up there >> to do real work and real research. > >What is "real reasearch"? I recall that during last summer's FRED budget >battles, several scientific societies (after much soul searching, no >doubt) recommended that FRED be cancelled since it did not provide the >sort of capabilities they needed for their research. There has been longstanding hostility to the space program by many scientists. Park's American Physical Society newsletter comes immediately to mind. Much of this hostility seems from here to be based on envy of the space program budget. Some seem to feel that killing Fred will mean more money for their pet projects. There's little evidence that this would be the case. SSC has come under similar attacks for similar reasons. I don't think it's possible to defend Fred on the basis of sheer volume of published papers, or on the number of research grants it will generate. Yet these are the measures many scientific societies apply to projects. Fred is at least as much an engineering testbed and technology demonstrator as it is a scientific research facility. That can sometimes upset the "pure" science types who would rather see the money spent on research grants. But the funding process doesn't work that way. It's not either/or, it's spend or not spend, and each program has to stand on it's own *political* merits when it lines up at the trough. 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: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 21:54:23 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb22.004727.1387@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <76000@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: > >> I'm confused again, Allen. Why do you say that "the Hare" (the US) >> thinks that refueling is too dangerous? > >Because when I asked an engineer working logistics at the Freedom program >office why Freedom stationkeeping thrusters wouldn't be refueled in space >he told me it was considered too dangerous. Ok, but what did he *mean* by that? Too dangerous to Freedom to leave years old valving and thrusters uninspected in orbit perhaps? >> refuel. The Freedom design, at least until Billary killed it, called >> for either refuelling or complete changeout of propulsion modules. > >The plan was to bring the whole mdoule back. This is far more expensive >then refueling. Is it? If the module is really modular, it would seem a simple exercise to unplug it and plug in the replacement. Since the bulk of the thruster is propellant storage, is it really that much more massive than refueling tanks and transfer equipment? Seems to me that since Shuttle is coming down anyway, it might as well return the thruster modules for easier on ground inspection, repair, and refilling. It would be bringing the empty refueling tankage in any event. Perhaps the module changeout can even be accomplished by the arm with no need for EVA and it's pre-breathe costs. 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: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:08:23 GMT From: "Peter L. Jackson" Subject: Regularly updated Weather images ... help with HDF format? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology In article <1mb16kINN15a@tamsun.tamu.edu> pmh2962@tamsun.tamu.edu (tommy pickles) writes: > Howdy! > Thanks, Milo. Can't wait to try this out. I have > a question about HDF files. What are they? I know > our NCAR Graphics package has some hdf filters for the > ftrans and ctrans routines -- can I feed your HDF files > to the NCARG stuff? Also, we have a few "hdf2xxx" conversion > programs on our Sun 4/470. Can I use these on your HDF files? > Lastly, are there any other programs on the net > for manipulating HDF files? Thanks for the help. > -- > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Pat Hayes, Meteorology, Texas A&M University......phayes@tamu.edu > O&M 1008, TAMU, CS, TX 77843-3150....days:(409)845-1680 fax:(409)862-4466 HDF is Hierarchical Data Format, and was invented by the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) as a way of storing self describing image and numerical data files. NSCA has written ximage, which is freely available for unix workstations to analyse / display hdf files. Also, the NCSA spinoff company, Spyglass, has a whole suite of software running on mac and sgi platforms which also use data files in hdf. -- ======================================================================== Peter Jackson | UWO Geography | phone (519)679-2111x5024 | fax 661-3750 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 93 23:59:04 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Shuttle refueling Newsgroups: sci.space While the dregs of propellant in the ET are not particularly easy to use as a liquid, it would be very easy to draw hydrogen and oxygen gas from the tanks. If it were possible to accelerate a shuttle/ET/space station as a unit (say at a boost of 0.01 G), then a small engine burning gaseous oxygen and hydrogen could make use of the ET propellants for reboosting the station. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 00:14:11 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Shuttle refueling was(Re: Sabatier Reactors.) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb21.181418.22481@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <1m5vo5INN5fj@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>If i understand, they did a simulation using nitrogen gas. >>and it's nice, but they only did one or two experiments in 60 >>missions. Sherzer is right on when he says every! shuttle misison >>should have carreid a couple of suits and had the astronauts out >>there playing with hardware in vacuum. > > A precursor test was done with inert gases, but on flight 41-G > Kathryn Sullivan and David Leestma did actual hydrazine transfers > during a 3 hour EVA to test hoses, valves, and couplings to be > used in future satellite refuelings. It worked perfectly, *several* > times. Rumor has it that new military spy satellites are fitted with > these couplings. A KH12 carries about 5,000 pounds of hydrazine, and > when it runs out, the satellite can't be maneuvered over interesting > targets anymore. If memory serves, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory is designed to be refueled by the Shuttle. I think the engines use hydrazine, although it's possible CGRO has a cold-gas system. > When a system works just like you intended it to > do, you don't need to test it on every flight. [...] > Fuel transfer has been done, it > works, end of story. The only question remaining is, when is it > cost effective? It may already be for spysats, but they aren't > going to tell us. [...] > Throwing in an EVA just for the hell > of it is really silly. With pre-breathe, it's very consuming of precious > on orbit astronaut time. There has to be a pressing reason to do EVA. Hmm... If, as NASA has announced and Allen Sherzer has "applauded," they want to gain EVA experience, it is not only useful to do even simple and dumb EVA tasks, it is useful to *repeat* the same ones with different astronauts. This serves a dual purpose: it gives you more statistics for performance measurements on the task, and it gives experience with it to more astronauts. Both seem to me good reasons to do lots of EVAs in an engineering program. I expect we'll see much more of the "spaceman's carry" and similar experiments. > 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 | | Overnight? -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1993 22:41:41 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSTO/DC-X GIFs Newsgroups: sci.space Hi I've uploaded two GIFs to : tezuka.rest.ri.cmu.edu [128.2.209.227] /pub/space and to: csd4.csd.uwm.edu:/pub/Misc SSTOART.GIF is an artist's rendition of the production...i.e., full size version... SSTOFOTO.GIF is a photograph of the actual 1/3 scale model to be flown along with some descriptive text which is short, yet informative.... Enjoy.....but keep in mind that this is an SDI project....not NASA..... Get it?! It's a shuttle killer...... Understand??? That is, don't expect much support from a service which has all it's money riding on the shuttle.... If and when it flies....if you want it....ya gotta PUSH for it.... ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 93 21:20:49 GMT From: 2hwwhuwa@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Stars in space pictures? Newsgroups: sci.space > In every space picture I've ever seen, like the ones of Earth, the Moon, the > various planets, etc., I have never seen *stars*. Shouldn't there be millions > of stars showing all around in space? > > Scott Stars arn't visible because the object in the forground is SO much brighter. You would have to overexpose the object in the forground to bring out the stars. An interesting point of you have PhotoShop or some other program for enhancing photographic images, you can bring out the stars by running the appropriate filters. The results can be quite supprising sometimes. Joseph A. Huwaldt Aerospace Engineering, KU jhuwaldt@aerospace.ae.ukans.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 21:16:47 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes: >In article <1993Feb18.185058.3991@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes: >>In article <1993Feb17.143613.3003@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, rivan@bnr.ca (Robert Ivan) writes: >>|> >>|> It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more >>|> suitable use of resources. Something that could take a few people and cargo >>|> out to the moon and back to earth orbit. Okay, I know that somebody will >>|> argue that a space station is needed in between. > > NASA an most others agree that a space station is virtually >useless as a staging point between the Earth and Moon or Mars. I >brought this point up with one of the people in Goldin's entourage in >Tampa in December. He told me that getting them in the proper position >on a return is almost impossible. They thus have no plans to use a >space station as an intermediate stop to or from any planet. Direct return to Earth, using aerobraking, is certainly more efficient in terms of fuel required than rendezvous with an orbiting station for a small capsule. However, the navigation requirements are nearly as stiff. The re-entry window is very narrow and was a concern during Apollo's development. Since then we've demonstrated some rather spectacular pin-point navigation in space. Note that since a lander is trying for a specific spot on Earth's surface, it's re-entry window moves just as surely as a station moves in orbit. For large vehicles, however, it would seem that the additional penalty for a re-entry shield, and re-entry shape, carried all the way out to destination and return, would outweigh the modest extra navigational constraints for station rendezvous. Von Braun thought, and some others still do, that atmosphere/space craft were unhappy compromises and that specialized systems better served the different needs of trans-atmospheric travel and space travel. This concept requires a waypoint transfer system in orbit. Whether that's a simple rendezvous, as with the Apollo LM and command module in Lunar orbit, or a complex docking and refit center such as a proposed space station, would seem to depend on the planned frequency of flights and on the size of the vehicles more than on the difficulty of navigation. 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: 23 Feb 93 00:29:16 GMT From: Dave Rickel Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb18.185058.3991@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, rivan@bnr.ca (Robert Ivan) writes: |> It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more |> suitable use of resources. Well, why should we have an Earth-moon shuttle if nobody wants to go to the moon (or at least, if nobody who has any money wants to go to the moon)? How do you fuel/refuel the beast? If you aren't using aerobraking at the earthside, you've got on the order of 8 km/sec delta v for a round trip. That's on the same order of as much as it took to achieve orbit in the first place. If you are doing aerobraking, the delta v goes down, but you have to worry about inspecting/replacing your heat shield after transfer into LEO. david rickel drickel@sjc.mentorg.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 17:01:15 EST From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Joint ESA/CNES Press Release No. 07.93 Paris, 23 February 1993 FIRST ARIANE-5 SOLID BOOSTER TEST SCORES WELL Analysis of the main parameters recorded during the first test, on 16 February, of the solid-propellant booster for ESA's Ariane-5 launcher confirms that all went well. In particular, the pressure and temperature values match predictions. Visual inspection has shown that all the booster parts are in good condition, i.e. the thermal protection, igniter, nozzle throat, etc. These good results, which will be consolidated by a detailed analysis of all 600 measurements taken during the firing, mean that the Ariane-5 launcher development plan can be confirmed, leading to a first launch in October 1995. The plan comprises 7 other tests on the booster teststand, to be carried out every three and a half months on average. The test was carried out under the responsibility of EUROPROPULSION*, with CNES** in overall charge. The P 230 booster is part of ESA'S Ariane-5 programme, the Agency having delegated CNES prime contractor. * a joint subsidiary of BPD Difesa e Spazio (Italy) and the Socit Europenne de Propulsion (France) ** Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (France)   ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 219 ------------------------------