Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 05:11:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #275 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 5 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: Alternative space station design Aurora (rumors) Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?) Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels) Galileo Earth-Moon Animation Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac Hohmann orbit, etc. formulas? Japan's space program Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) NASP (was Re: Canadian SS New Explorers Videocf:Science Teachers Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed (2 msgs) Saucer movie (was Re: Fire in the Sky) Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event Solar Panels Falling Off unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) 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: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 14:06:57 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Alternative space station design Newsgroups: sci.space In article Hugh Emberson, hugh@huia.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: > Why not solar arrays? Couldn't you just wrap solar cells around all > of your modules, or have lots of small rigid wings. Some cells will > be in shadow some of the time, but if you have enough of them then it > won't be a problem. Over-engineer! This still doesn't solve your plume contamination problem or your cell degradation problem. > > Another solution would be to have a big array (as big as Freedoms > arrays or bigger) attached to your station by a short tether (~100m). > The drag and the gravity gradient would probably produce a couple of > microgees though. You would need some way of controlling it, stopping > it spinning and getting tangled up. Perhaps the array could be flown > like a kite, deflect one half of the array slightly so that its drag > produces a torque in the opposite direction to the rotation you want > to control. If you're going to use a tether, why not avoid the increased reboost from the solar array and generate electricity with the tether itself. I have been toying with this idea too (damn I'm sorry the TSS mission didn't work better). Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 07:44:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space DA> DA>From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) DA>Newsgroups: sci.space DA>Subject: Re: Aurora (rumors) DA>Message-ID: <1993Mar2.123302.24462@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> DA>Date: 2 Mar 93 12:33:02 GMT JSTARS was used quite effectively in the Gulf War . . . --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 11:58:41 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?) Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary I'd like to extend Bill Higgin's excellent comments on processing of native Martian materials for fueling automated rovers. Native propellant can also be used for lifting samples off Mars with small, reusable SSTOs. Building an SSTO for Mars' 1/3 gravity well is much easier than building an SSTO for Earth. The easiest material to extract is atmospheric CO2, but we should also consider extracting water from ice deposits at an early date to avoid hauling bulky hydrogen from earth. It is not clear that we can even ship liquid hydrogen from earth to Mars without losing most of it to ullage. Here is a specific scenario showing the power of using native propellants: 250 robot rover/hoppers: 3 month round trip: go up to 1,000km, collect 20kg samples, return: consume 100kg CH4/O2 fuel 50 processing plants: each produce 5,000 kg CH4/O2 per yr, each mass 50 kg (100/yr MOR) 5 SSTOs: each 20 sorties/yr, 200 kg/sortie, consume 2,000 kg/sortie 3 Earth-Mars upper stages: 1 sortie/3 yrs, return 20,000 kg/sortie The system can cover up to 50*pi*(1,000)^2 = 1.57e8 km^2 Mars surface area = 1.45e8 km^2 What would this cost? Much depends on our ability to miniaturize the processing plants. I suggest this kind of mission is in the timeframe of 2000-2010, and the good news is that technology now in the laboratory radically improving chemical reactor design could be available for operational use by that time. I discussed some of these in detail in my earlier post on on chemical microreactors. If NASA wants to regain its prestige, and lead the world in developing Mars, it can get in on the ground floor by funding this research today. Microreactor's main application will be increasing efficiency and greatly reducing the pollution of chemical facilities on earth, so the field hast vast potential for spinoffs. By that timeframe, we may be able to reduce the energy consumption of the "Mars Direct" chemical processing steps by an order of magnitude, and the propellant-making equipment mass by a factor of five, so that its mass output ratio per year is is >100:1 instead of 20:1. With sufficient miniaturization we might put the processing plant on the rover itself, greatly reducing the up-front costs and further increasing the capabilities of the mission. The technology will further improve to support astronauts and full-fledged space colonies inexpensively in later timeframes, but NASA and the space activist community must change its strategy now if we are to take full advantage of the opportunity within our lifetimes. The following are my own cost WAGs for the c. 2010 timeframe: 15 Brilliant-Eyes/relay orbiters @$20 million = $0.3 billion 50 automated processing plants @ $40 million = $2.0 billion 250 rover/hoppers @$10 million = $2.5 billion 5 Mars SSTOs @$200 million = $1.0 billion 3 reusable, hi-Isp upper stages @$333 million = $1.0 billion This is the first Mars mission concept, astronaut or automated, that proposes to return tons -- 20 tons per year -- of samples from anywhere on Mar's surface over a period of a decade or more. The full-blown project might cost only $6.8 billion, compared to $5 billion for a larger but small-area rover with only kilograms of samples, or a small-area astronaut mission for $400 billion. The cost/kg of sample is $34,000 in the native system, compared to $50,000,000 in the old automated scenario and $400,000,000 in astronaut scenario. Furthermore, these processing capabilities lay the groundwork for future astronaut missions that can rely primarily on native Martian materials instead of having to haul most of their supplies from Earth. In any affordable astronaut mission, not only propellant but rover fuel, food and water will be provided by an extensive network of automated microreactors and greenhouses on Mars rather than being wastefully hauled all the way from Earth. Then the astronauts can, like Columbus, have a thriving biosphere and ready sources of resupply waiting at the other end, even if in this case the planet was first found lifeless and without industry. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 15:57:36 GMT From: Keith Mancus Subject: Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , daniel@polaris.async.vt.edu (Daniel Pawtowski) writes: >>In the SF book 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven & others, a launch >>vehicle named PHOENIX was described. In the afterward, it was claimed >>that such a launch vehicle (SSTO/VTOL) could be build for $50M-200M. >>Anyone have information on the design of this critter? > It is now part of SDI and is known as the McDonald Douglas Delta Clipper, > or DC-X. Pardon me for nitpicking corrections, but that's "McDonnell Douglas". This particular misspelling has always given me hives...we don't do hamburgers. :-) > I haven't actually heard anything about the project since last fall. At > that time, they were halfway through construction of the DC-Y test vehicle, a > 1/3 scale test vehicle using engines from an existing rocket. The DC-Y > is not manned and does not have orbital capability. > Constrction of the first DC-X was set for early 1994, first launch in 1997. Actually, DC-X is the unmanned suborbital version and DC-Y is the manned orbital prototype. The first commercial version would be called DC-1. > The fuel used by the real DC-X is a little more complicated than the > Phoenix. That ship used straight hydrogen and oxygen. The real one will > use "slush hydrogen" fuel for greater energy density. Actually, Gary Hudson's original Phoenix proposal used slush hydrogen too. -- Keith Mancus | N5WVR | "Money is never *mere*. It separates the feasible | from the infeasible." | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 21:14:38 GMT From: Hunter Scales Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > ============================== > GALILEO EARTH-MOON ANIMATION > February 27, 1993 > ============================== > The Galileo Earth-Moon Conjunction animation is now available at the Ames >Space Archives. This animation is courtesy of Paul Geissler and Larry Kendall >This is a time-lapse sequence taken by the Galileo spacecraft on >December 16, 1992, eight days after its flyby of the Earth/Moon system >en route to Jupiter. The 46 frames span 15 hours of motion by the Earth, >Moon and spacecraft. These images were acquired with the 0.968 micron >filter so that both vegetated and unvegetated land masses appear bright >in contrast to the oceans. South is at top. Visible are the Pacific basin, >Australia, Southeast Asia, India, and finally Arabia and the horn of Africa. >A remarkable feature of this time-lapse sequence is the specular reflection >or sun glint from the sea surface. Depending on the roughness of the water >the extent of specular reflection varies rapidly, expanding over rough >waters and contracting to a point over still oceanic pools such as near >the west coast of Australia. This is one of the most amazing and moving things I have seen in a long time! Could you possibly provide us with more information on the sequence that than given above? For instance, what was the distance from the spacecraft to the earth when the sequence starts, what was the velocity/acceleration of the spacecraft during the sequence. A diagram of the earth-moon configuraton would also be helpful. I cant tell if the moon is between the earth and the spacecraft or on the other side. Thanks so much for sharing this with us. -- Hunter Scales Motorola Semiconductor Inc. hunter@prometheus.sps.mot.com Austin, Texas "The opinions expressed in this posting do not necessarily reflect those of the management" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 14:36:58 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac Newsgroups: sci.space In <14336.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> roland.dobbins@the-matrix.com (Roland Dobbins) writes: >M > >M > Robert E. McElwaine >M > B.S., Physics and Astronomy >M > >M > >That's nuts . . . Yes, it is. So why did you include the whole thing again? And I still wonder if Mr. McElwaine might not be subject to action for the dishonesty of his signature, which appears to claim that he *has* degrees in physics and astronomy. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 14:20:21 GMT From: joel peter anderson Subject: Hohmann orbit, etc. formulas? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary I am looking for basic formulas for the following. Orbital (circular) velocities. Orbital (elliptical) velocities. I want this to do some simple calculations for Hohmann transfer orbits, for example, an ellipse that touches Earth and Mars. Being able to calculate the velocities along any point of the ellipse would be nice, but not necessary. [and yes, I know about the books mentioned in the space/astro FAQ; I just don't have them/don't want that much info. I used to, 20+ years ago, have a great book called 'the Mathematics of Space Exploration' that had all kinds of basic formula like this.... ] Email appreciated - no need to bog this group down. Thank you, Joel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- joela@joela.apertus.com |GEnie: J.ANDERSON71 Joel Peter Anderson |PNET: jpa@pnet51.orb.mn.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 14:52:46 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Japan's space program Newsgroups: sci.space In jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >Folks, If you don't know, don't speculate. Henry will explain eventually :-) Why not, as long as it is *plainly marked* as speculation rather than claims of knowledge? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 17:13:38 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >The various Mariner, Pioneer and Voyager missions >used distinctly different hardware. Magellan was made from spare parts off >Voyager and Galileo. The Cassini and CRAF missions were designed to use the >Mariner Mk II but CRAF has been canceled and there aren't likely to be any >other missions in that class for a while, so Mariner Mk II will probably never >see the light of day in a form resembling the original concept. FYI on Magellan hardware "heritage": The bird was built from spare parts from even more spacecraft than just Voyager and Galileo. Also Mariner (a Medium Gain Antenna), Viking, Skylab (!). If I'm not mistaken, CRAF & Cassini "were" the Mariner Mark II (i.e., the MM2 design was driven by their requirements). So, at this point, MM2 pretty much consists of Cassini (a single-mission multi-mission bus). As you said, not much resembling the original concept (I've seen some of the Cassini blue-prints -- it would be tough to adapt this beast to most other missions). As for Discovery, the baseline I've heard is that any Discovery mission (minus launch costs) WILL come in at under $150 million (or else the mission gets the axe). Last I heard, there is one Venus Discovery mission in the works; don't hold your breath on one to Jupiter (deep space pretty much mandates RTG's for power, and they aren't cheep!). Eric Seale ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 13:28:04 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > > NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff > vehicle, is not a transport aircraft. It's probably dead. Physics > has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through > the heart of the program. About time.... > And I had such high hopes. The theoretical Isp's of air breathing engines are so nice. Mary, can you post a little more detail on which physics tripped the NASP? -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 14:21:31 EST From: tflavell@pbs.org Subject: New Explorers Videocf:Science Teachers Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology,sci.bio,sci.space TO: School Media Specialists, Science Teachers FR: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service RE: The New Explorers Videoconference for Educators DT: March 3,1993 Refer to DACS MSG #27139 THE NEW EXPLORERS VIDEOCONFERENCE FOR EDUCATORS TO AIR ON PBS WTTW/Chicago and the PBS Elementary/Secondary Service are pleased to announce a free national videoconference for science teachers built around the educational resources of THE NEW EXPLORERS series. The live videoconference is being presented in association with the U.S. Department of Energy, and series underwriters, Amoco Corporation, Waste Management Inc., and Duracell International, Inc., and is scheduled for March 25, 1993, from 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern Time preceded by 30-minutes of test time. THE NEW EXPLORERS, while a part of the National Program Service, is also a major teaching resource for science teachers. The goal of the videoconference is to heighten awareness among educators of THE NEW EXPLORERS primetime series and its comprehensive educational materials, and to help educators use these tools to achieve the goal of making America's students number one in math and science. The videoconference date was selected to afford stations maximum promotional value for the kickoff of Season Three of THE NEW EXPLORERS series, which begins March 28. Please contact the Education Services Director at your local PBS station to find out if it will be available in your area. To find out the name and phone number of your Education Services Director, simply E-mail TFLAVELL@PBS.ORG or call (703) 739-5402. TITLE : THE UNENDING PROCESS OF DISCOVERY: THE NEW EXPLORERS VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE : Thursday, March 25, 1993 TIME : Timezone Test Time Event Time Eastern 3:30-4:00 PM 4:00- 5:00 PM Central 2:30-3:00 PM 3:00-4:00 PM Pacific 12:30-1:00 PM 1:00-2:00 PM DESCRIPTION : This national videoconference will focus on the educational outreach components of the primetime PBS series, THE NEW EXPLORERS. The goal is to heighten awareness of the series and its educational resources among educators, and to show how they might use it in their own schools and communities to improve science education and strengthen students' interest in science as a career. Originating from the WTTW studios in Chicago, the videoconference will draw on the experience of THE NEW EXPLORERS educational model that was developed in Chicago and has been effectively used by over 400 schools and by more than 60,000 students there. The Chicago model was created by the U.S. Department of Energy through the resources and coordination of the Argonne National laboratory, located outside Chicago. The videoconference will also showcase the experience of Central School in Somerville, N.J. -- the first school in the country to scrap its science teaching methods and adopt THE NEW EXPLORERS as the basis for its science curriculum. Anchored by series host Bill Kurtis, the videoconference will show educators how THE NEW EXPLORERS educational initiative can be replicated in communities across the country. THE NEW EXPLORERS educational components steer students away from rote-memorization and a strict reliance on textbooks toward a greater hands-on participation through classroom activities, field trips and on-site discovery. AUDIENCE : While the target audience is middle, junior and senior high school science teachers, WTTW and PBS hope that stations will use this opportunity to invite administrators, community and business leaders, and media representatives to this event. Downlink hosts may wish to organize a local discussion among participants following the videoconference. Communities with science museums or centers, science laboratories, Department of Energy facilities, and other science-related institutions, may wish to consider cosponsoring the videoconference with these groups. Downlink sites may also broadcast the videoconference on a live or tape-delay basis. RIGHTS : Unlimited broadcast by public television stations; unlimited off-air record rights; non-commercial cable rights. VHS tapes of the videoconference may be distributed by the host site as long as no profit is derived from such distribution. Schools and colleges with C-band downlink capabilities may downlink the videoconference free of charge. TO REGISTER : If you intend to downlink THE NEW EXPLORERS VIDEOCONFERENCE, you must call or fax Tom Flavell or Francis Thompson at (703) 739-5402 (ph) or (703) 739-8495 (fax) to register. END ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1993 08:59 CST From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1n4441INN47i@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >In article <1mv3ie$lol@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: >> >> [Serious == among other things "the solar panels will FALL OFF"] >> >> This is not a minor problem. It's an institutional disaster. > >Oh this one is minor, compared to the Good One I heard. Before they >Killed the 20Khz power bus, the main power supply design they had approved and >were designed to use had a single fault failure mode that was explosive in nature. THis is inside the Pressure vessel. The reaction of Management to >this problem was "so what, no astronauts will be endangered, this thing >will never fly anyway" > >pat Welcome to the National Enquieror of Space. Geez pat you criticize me for coming up with realistic objections to your obtuse posts that refuse to consider reality, and then you make stupid statments like this. The 20Khz system never ever got past the concept demonstration phase. It was killed for many good reasons, most of them concerning RFI/EMI problems. Doubt this you do? Well I was in the room the day the thing was started up and I am a personal witness to this. ANY Space Electrical power system has a single fault failure mode. It is called the battery. Many batteries have exploded in space, the most recent of which was on the last shuttle mission, where the primary battery on the IUS blew up. BUT even with this explosive event, the secondary systems took the TDRSS to its proper orbit. It is statements like the one above that helps to catagorize you in the mode of crying wolf when none are around and calls into question your whole stand. What would happen if no one like me who has been in the business and seen things as a personal witness and who has the contacts that I do to rebut this uninformed reporting? I leave this up to the reader. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 16:20:55 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4MAR199308594616@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >ANY Space Electrical power system has a single >fault failure mode. It is called the battery. Dennis, batteries are not in and of themselves able to cause single fault failures. It depends on the system they are connected to. >Many batteries have exploded in >space, the most recent of which was on the last shuttle mission, where the >primary battery on the IUS blew up. BUT even with this explosive event, the >secondary systems took the TDRSS to its proper orbit. Perfect example. Since the battery exploded and yet the mission was a suscess it follows that the battery wasn't a single point failure. A single point failure is one which will cause a system to fail if it happens. A lot of effort goes into eliminating them in the engineering of aerospace systems so there tend to be very few. Before calling people stupid Dennis you should reflect on the biblical quote about the mote in your neighbors eye. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------103 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 03:33:09 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Saucer movie (was Re: Fire in the Sky) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <467.2B94621C@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>, Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes: > On March 12th, your perception of reality will be substantially > changed. Usenet has warped it irreparably already. > On March 12th, Paramount Pictures and Joe Wizan/Todd Black > Productions will present "Fire in the Sky," a true story based > on the Travis Walton experience, whose abduction by a UFO is one > of the best-documented cases in history. [...] > Screenwriter Tracy Torme' [...] Formerly story editor on *Star Trek Lite*, a TV series well known for its scientific accuracy. > A must see for everyone! For all good Saucer People, anyway. As my daddy used to say, "Remind me to miss it." -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 16:00:17 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology I am a little skeptical about associating El Nino with the TOPEX altitude "anomaly". Since this type of data has only been collected a few months, with expection of short-lived earlier satellites, it will take some time to establish what is "normal" for ocean altimetry. It will be a useful tool when we have collected data longer. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1993 10:24 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: Solar Panels Falling Off Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mv3ie$lol@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes... > I was told by MacDac employees months ago that there were serious >problems with WP2. They indicated that their management and NASA >management refused to accept them because they couldn't afford to >fix them at the time. > > [Serious == among other things "the solar panels will FALL OFF"] You heard wrong. 1. MDAC is not building the solar panels, that is a WP-4 job 2. Yes, the Loads & Dynamics Working Group has calculated loads for certain Orbiter approach scenarios where the plume load on the array exceeds the array mast capability (so the array would break off). The scenario is if the Orbiter has do perform a breakout maneuver, because they get outside the approach corridor, then the calculated loads are too high. The program is looking at many options to solve the problem, from doing an Orbiter backout instead of a breakout, or retracting the solar array (which, with the Galelio antenna deployment problems & the problems with the deployment of the tether satellite, is low on the options list). Also, some folks question the validity of the calculated loads - the computer code used to calculate the plume loads is unverified. Finally, NASA could always install an auto-pilot on the Shuttle, to automate the docking procedure, and this whole issue would become moot. One last point - the calculated Orbiter plume loads only exceed the array mast capability on the early flights, where the Orbiter is berthing in relatively close proximity to the array. After more truss is added to SSF on later flights, the array's are further from the plumes, and the calculated load is within the mast capability. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 02:27:53 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1mg9tmINNoqb@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >Rather than trying to cover yourself, why don't you address how much direct >unemployment would result from your fantasies? Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers? I must've lost that page. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 275 ------------------------------