Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 05:12:31 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #361 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 25 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 361 Today's Topics: Al to isometric crystalline C..diamond Artificial Gravity Can we still build the Saturn V? Cooling down Venus COSMIC Catalog DC-X Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space) Form letter from Panetta on DCX/SSTO/SDIO SSRT Goldin's comment on Station Ideias for saving Galileos' Mission Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program Luddites in space Mach 25 Magellan Update - 03/22/93 Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-) Small Expendable Deploye Space Station Freedom Redesign STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?) Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF) 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: Wed, 24 Mar 93 15:33:35 EST From: "S.K. Whiteman" Subject: Al to isometric crystalline C..diamond >"David M. Palmer" writes: > >Gold isn't very useful for Coke cans (not strong enough), but diamond That's why its only around $330 per troy ounce...Cheap. >will be used for all sorts of things, once nanotech comes in. Your ref to diamonds sparked a memory; in the last few months I have on two occasions ran across references in the popular press, Good Morning America and Life magazine, to artificial diamonds. I was wondering if there has been any technical info available on this topic. BTW my favorite R&T April road test was the sudan chair.... Twin Turbo Lackies Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 06:00:50 GMT From: Shannon Thornburg Subject: Artificial Gravity Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar23.232400.1423@ee.ubc.ca> neil storey, neils@ee.ubc.ca writes: < Some valid discussion and calculations relating to artificial gravity spacecraft deleted > >...and I believe that a >rotation rate of the order of 2 minutes per revolution is the >maximum thought to be allowable to prevent the astronauts from >being aware of their own rotation. >If one accepts this rate of rotation it transpires that to >achieve full earth gravity a space-station would need a radius >of nearly 4km. Very close. Actually, a rotation of rate of 2 to 3 revolutions per minute is considered to be acceptable. At 2 rpm, a radius of 224 meters gives one Earth gravity. An 84 m radius gives one Martian g, which might be the ideal for a manned Mars mission. >...two small spacecraft linked by a cable >would have the same effect. Exactly. A tether using Kevlar would compose less than 5% of the total spacecraft mass, assuming very conservative safety factors of approximately 10 times the maximum expected dynamic loading. One of the technical challenges of tethered spacecraft is damping vibrational motions of the tether. This is the problem I and several other student here at Stanford have been working on for the past several years. No one would enjoy a ride that feels like a half-year long earthquake of magnitude 6. The potential advantages of artificial gravity for long space flights make it worth studying, but there are lots of questions that still need to be answered before a spacecraft of this type could be built. -- Shannon Thornburg Guidance & Control Laboratory Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 02:00:48 GMT From: Jim Cook Subject: Can we still build the Saturn V? Newsgroups: sci.space In article 2928@iti.org, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >The House Science Committee Space Subcommittee had hearings on >this subject about 2 years ago. There is enough data available to >start Saturn production again. > >However, it would cost $16 billion to begin production again and ... $16 BILLION? Not $16 million? --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. James Cook Epoch Systems, Inc. 508-836-4711x385 8 Technology Drive JCook@Epoch.com Westboro, MA 01581 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 06:31:40 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Cooling down Venus Newsgroups: sci.space To first order, the main task to cool down Venus is to remove or redistribute the atmosphere. We probably don't care a hell of a lot what the final composition is as long as the greenhouse effect is broken. It would be nice to end up with a predominately N2 atmosphere, as thin as possible. (Partial pressure of N2 at Venus' surface is about 3 bars.) Maybe genetic engineering will someday give us the ability to design a set of microbes to do the job. Phase one would be cloud seeding, and you want the microbes to be hygroscopic, photo- synthetic, and have the ability to take CO2 and incorporate it into a stable compound that would fall to the surface and sit there. Variants of the original microbes may be introduced as temperatures and atmospheric pressures decrease. Eventually the surface might become bearable. Perhaps the surface deposits would have a use by supplying habitations with carbon-based materials. If the skies were fairly clear, solar energy would be practical. A solar day on Venus would be around 120 days, so if it was still too hot during the day, work on the surface could be done at night. It would be a pretty dark night, however, with no large moon. -rabjab ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 03:14:57 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: COSMIC Catalog Newsgroups: sci.space > Bill Higgins-- Beam Jo writes: > > You know, if the relevant parts of NASA were not so clueless, the > COSMIC catalog would long since have been at an FTP site somewhere. Don't be too hasty - the COSMIC catalog is available by FTP: The following information is from NASA Spacelink, which can be reached by telnet at spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov telnet. It is part of a file which gives details of ordering a catalog by mail, phone etc. The full file describing how to get a COSMIC catalog is reached by using telnet and asking for item 10 on the Spacelink main menu, followed by asking for item 2 on the next menu, then item 6 of the final menu. I will E-mail the full file to anyone requesting it (the note on how to get a catalog, not the full catalog itself, which I believe is several megabytes). FTP The domestic or international versions of the MS-DOS based catalogs may be downloaded by using standard file transfer protocol. The address is: cossack.cosmic.uga.edu (128.192.14.4) with logon as "anonymous". Transfer the file in binary mode. To download the domestic catalog simply cd to the catalog/domestic directory and get the file named: pccat92d.exe. For the international catalog, cd to the catalog/international directory and get the file named: pccat92i.exe. Both files are self extracting MS-DOS executable and can be installed by executing the proper .exe file once you have landed it on your PC. The ftp server is a unix host so those ftping from a non-unix mcahine may need to modify syntax accordingly. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 1993 03:00:25 GMT From: "John R. Manuel" Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article I write: >Are there any articles in Aviation Week, or somewhere similar, about DC-X >that someone can refer me to? I'm curious to see the design of the thing >and in particular, how it will manage re-entry and still be re-usable. I've got a bit more information about DC-X (thanks everyone for the pointers), but I still have my question about re-entry: how is DC-Y* going to be able to re-enter the atmosphere without experiencing engine damage? If it assumes an Apollo-like attitude on re-entry, I'd think that there would be a lot of ablative damage to the engines. What do the designers plan to do to prevent such damage and still make DC-Y immediately reuseable? * - Apparently DC-X isn't intended to go any higher than a few tens of thousands of feet so it won't experience the worst effects of re-entry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John R. Manuel srgpjrm@grv.grace.cri.nz 64-4-570-4024 (office) NIWAR Atmospheric Division 64-4-566-6166 (fax) Wellington, New Zealand --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 03:19:28 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1op22q$5qf@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: > Nick: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow. > > Dennis: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow. > > You two are both smart enough not to have to get into flame wars every > few months... Maybe they should both take a break and gang up on Allen. What do you think, George, are pat and Steinn promising new contenders in the Flame Derby? -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 20:45:23 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Form letter from Panetta on DCX/SSTO/SDIO SSRT Newsgroups: sci.space Just received a dull form letter from Leon Panetta, who `appreciate[s] my thoughts on this matter' [of the 1994 budget]; i.e. acknowledging my support for DC-Y. Seems to have been signed by the man himself, though (in blue felt-tip :->). Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1993 21:44:21 GMT From: steve hix Subject: Goldin's comment on Station Newsgroups: sci.space In article innes@ecf.toronto.edu (INNES MATTHEW) writes: >In article <1993Mar22.195555.18384@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes: >> "We could fight with each other, we could make fancy view graphs, we >>could have leather briefcases, we could have patent leather shoes, we could go >>rolling up to the Hill, we could make a lot of promises, we could get other >>programs canceled, we could destroy careers. If you wear your corporate hat, >>your center hat, if you wear a truss hat, if you wear a hat that has a solar >>array, if you wear a hat that has your personal identification and ego on it, >>you will destroy what we have. You'd better put on a baseball cap that says the >>United States of America or we're not going to have a coherent space program." >> >> - Dan Goldin in "Space News Roundup", March 15, 1993 >> >> Given the infighting going on in this group, I'd say this is a timely >>remark... > >Given my understanding of the English language, I'd say this is gibberish. >What *was* that bit about solar-powered hats, anyway? 8-) It's called metaphor. You don't get into it until later in elementary school. You were joking, of course. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | |------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 10:30:35 PRT From: Luis Pontes Subject: Ideias for saving Galileos' Mission Hi All I had an ideia on how to get the HGA free in Galileo's Probe. I know that rubbe r expands when heated. So a solution would be keeping the side of the probe whe re the ribs are always turned facing the Sun. Therefore, the ribs would expand and the antenna could get free. Now i don't know exactly the conditions of the Probe, and i know it's a very lo g shot, but...Perhaps the spacecraft is too far away to the Sun light to warm i t. Anyway, it had to be done without riscking the spacecraft. I also have a question for Ron Baalke, of JPL, which is: What are the possibili ties of using the HGA usefuly in it's mission, if the present condition of it m aintains untill the end of the mission ? Thanks in advance Luis Pontes - Physics Student Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon, Portugal These are my exclusive opinions. Affiliation shown for ID purposes only. PS - Sorry for any mistakes with my English "Nao sou o unico a olhar o ceu" - Resistencia "I'm not the only one to look at the sky" - Resistence ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 19:31:26 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >In the current issue of Time, there is a one-paragraph story that >mentions: > >"At the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan... civilian workers have >been looting equipment, crippling the facility's launch pad in the >process. The Russian space program is also involved in a feud with >the new Ukrainian state, which has its own space program. A Russian >meteorological satellite was turned off in orbit, so Ukraine couldn't >recover weather data from it. Some of the stolen Baikonur equipment >has mysteriously resurfaced in Ukraine..." > >Does anyone have more details, either about the looting at Baikonur, >the seriousness of the "crippling" of the "launch pad", or about the >extent of the Ukrainian space program? This sounds like a echo of a story in the Russian press about 6 months ago. They were talking about the Energia and Buran launch pads. In the Russian article the phrase was "they took anything that could be taken..". So don't expect to see the crew access arm at the scrap yard anytime soon. Different manufacturers have different launch pad facilities, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Ukrainian manufacturer does what they want with their facilities and they might feel like parts of the Energia pad are 'theirs' also since it uses the Zenit first stage... I'm not saying they are the legal owners, the ownership is unclear to them also, but Strategic Rocket Forces troops might defend the sites IF IT SUITED THEM. Last year, the Ukrain space agency consisted of one man. They do have significant space industry including the Yuzhnoye NPO (or Southern Association, whatever they call it now). Yuzhnoye was begun by Cheif Designer Yangle (a Korolev associate of the 1950's). Yuzhnoye used the Yuzhmash factory to produce Meteor satellites, lunar module ascent stage, SS-4, 9, 5, 7, 18, 24 ballistic missiles, Tsyklon and Zenit boosters, etc. Its a big complex and was of great intrest to US intelligence agents which reportedly visited the plant last year. They currently offer many variations of their ballistic missiles for space launch use including air launched versions. They were pushing them in a paper at last years IAF congress. I have read other reports of problems between the Russian and Ukrainian space communication sites. Its hard to say from reading the press accounts how it all starts, but its all about lack of payment, etc. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 07:19:54 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Luddites in space Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Nick: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow. Dennis: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow. You two are both smart enough not to have to get into flame wars every few months... -george william herbert Retro Aerospace ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 05:25:16 GMT From: William Reiken Subject: Mach 25 Newsgroups: sci.space I was reading in the Popular Science "March 93" 'Science Newsfront' on page 35 about the Mach 25 Transporter. Some questions: 1). Power is lasers or microwaves. What kind of lasers would these be? 2). How much energy would be required to operate such lasers and how much loss would there be? 3). Lasers on the craft for power. Again what kind of lasers would these be? 4). The lasers for driving the craft heat a small area of air to 30,000 degree K. How much energy does it take to do this? 5). Laser to electric power for MHD propulsion in space. What kind of equipment is nessasary for this kind of thing? What is the efficiency of such equipment? 6). Rensselar Polytechnic Institute in Troy NY.. Anyone know any of these people so that I may contact them direct for more information? Will... ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 1993 04:38:09 GMT From: "Peter G. Ford" Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1onp5v$lu3@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > How long will Magellan funding last, now that the conversion has been > made to the LMGT? And once the gravity data is collected after the > aero-braking exercise, is their any hope of collecting further radar > data, or does it look like the transmitters are pretty much shot. I think that Magellan project science support is due to expire at the end of September, although a NASA-sponsored "Venus Data Analysis Program" will taken over, so Magellan data will continue to be studied for years to come. The experiment has already generated about 400 Gbytes of imagery and 10 Gbytes of altimetry. The degradation in down-link performance has been progressive. The last wide-band radar telemetry sent back in September 1992 was only partially readable, and even this was only made possible by heating the transmitter to the limit of its thermal tolerance. The target area (large volcanos named Hathor, Innini, and Ushas) hadn't yet been imaged by Magellan, so this high-temperature operation was adjudged worth the risk of melting something! No wide-band telemetry is needed for aero-braking or gravity mapping. While there is no lack of hope in this business, the odds seem to be stacked against receiving any more radar data. Peter Ford MIT Center for Space Research Disclaimer: just my own opinions, folks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:11:21 GMT From: "Thomas E. Smith" Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary >In article crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU >(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: >> So you increase the wavelength and decrease the frequency. >> It would also seem to me that in such a situations clocks run slow >> 'within' the gravitational disturbance. The two disturbances >> (gravitational and electromagnetic) fly back to the detector, >> and the gravitational disturbance slows the 'clocks' at >> the receiver to effectively increase the frequency >> and cancel the effect. gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >If we assume that the gravitational wave is a classical wavefront, >and we assume it travels at lightspeed, then your objection only >occurs when the Earth, satellite, and source of gravity waves are >all lined up. If the gravitational disturbance is arriving from >some angle off that line, the EM wave and the gravity wave will >only be coincident at one point along the line of sight. > >Gary > That will affect the doppler shift a little, but still the gravity wave only affects the Earth based detector as it passes the detector. A very short period of time, and it stays with the EM wave for most, if not all, of its trip to the Earth. Though if the wave's travel is perpendicular to the line connecting the spacecraft and the Earth, there will be no effect, because it will affect both the spacecraft and the earth in the same way. But that's what the other two spacecraft are there for. But that brings up a point. What is the relativistic interaction between two waves moving at light speed? How do they view eachother? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Living on Earth may be expensive,|Tom E. Smith | ._________ | | but it includes an annual free |tes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov| |= (0_, \ \ | | trip around the Sun. | | |= |0 ` / | | |--------------------------------------------------------------| |---u----/ | | And no, I don't speak for my company or any other company. | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 18:13:28 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-) Nick Szabo sez; >>Luddites, 1993: bands of astronaut and their groupies... >>.... Luddites rail against the alleged >>"failures of AI" while Japan's car makers kick our butts by installing >>robots, insist that what people "really" want is to see their beloved >>astronauts in space, and don't care how useful it is or whether they >>can afford it. Ignoring economics at every turn, they insist on massive >>government subsidies for their bizarrely expensive, obsolete technologies >>to redress their greivances. Herman Rubin replies; >The case for robots is, as usual, highly exaggerated by Szabo. The case for Szabo's exaggeration is, as usual, highly exaggerated :-) >Robots can be used for operations requiring little intelligence; This is circular. The definition of intelligence has historically been upgraded to mean "whatever computers can't do." They can play chess and beat masters? Well, chess-playing isn't evidence for intelligence. They can calculate with blinding speed? Calculation isn't intelligence. They can mimic human language and response? That isn't intelligence. They can travel mysterious realms, keep track of their position in 7-d and return correctly exposed and positioned pictures of wonders never before seen by human eyes? That's not intelligence. So what the hell is intelligence anyway? >AI is highly overrated, and the so-called "intelligent" programs >just carry out a massive number of pre-programmed operations so >as to get results by brute force. That sounds darn similar to the way most humans behave. Brute force or not, what do you want besides a correct answer in reasonable time? >The position MIGHT be justified if all that is wanted is astronomical >or planetological information. I do not believe in NASA either, but >my goal is to have people living and prospering in space. No amount >of robotics is going to get us much closer to this. Seems to me that your assertion is highly suspect. Robotics are already getting the best exploratory results in space, and have been for a long time. Given what we still need to learn, they probably will for quite a while yet. And any advances between then and now will only increase their importance, perhaps beyond exploration into other venues as well. I opine that your post, in the context of the situtation WRT robots in space, would classify you as 'railing against the failures of AI'. AI isn't the end-all, but robotics and AI are the answer to some problems, so we'd be better off using them. By extension, people that block their use are part of the problem. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1993 18:51 CST From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Small Expendable Deploye Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5022313ac@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes... > > >Let me get this straight - the SEDS tether experiment was mostly done >IN HOUSE, with the exception of the tether. I presume that what you >mean by the "tether" would also include the reeling mechanism, and >the sensors to determine whether the tether is being unreeled correctly. >Since the mission will use the US Air Force Delta second stage for >telemetry, power and attitude control, that means that NASA's role >in all of this is largely to pay the contractor to put the tether >together, something that NASA couldn't do correctly itself in its $100 >million Tethered Satellite System. > I will be glad to set you straight. First there is no reeling mechanism on the tether. Second the tether contractor supplied only the spool of tether, the braking mechanism and the box that the flight electronics comes in. The electronics were developed at Marshall by Marshall employees. The idea for the tether deployment and the first simulation codes for this also came from Marshall. All of the integration work is being done by Marshall employees as well as the tether contractor. All the software for data reduction in flight was developed by Marshall employees as well as all of the logistics, qualification tests, and other paperwork required to launch a secondary payload on the Delta II. Any more questions? Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 13:28:47 GMT From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Space Station Freedom Redesign Newsgroups: sci.space Hi guys, Just an idea...like alot of other good things on sci.space with the SSF redesign analysis underway... I was thinking ... (I thought I smelled something burning 8-)) Well, SSF should be the testbed for long duration spaceflight. and life sciences needs a centrifuge for any good artificial gravity studies. SSF should also be a lead off for future exploration of the moon or Mars (I know that this can be debated). So, why don't we just make SSF in the shape and design for an interplanetary spacecraft. I mean why do we need to make one design for LEO and another for long-duration flight to Mars? Why can't we just make the space station into something which could be mated to a propulsion system for acceleration into lunar orbit? Then, it would be a two-stage system (one stage for human habitation and science payloads and one stage for propulsion). I know that there are more aspects to this idea...there must be, or else some other guy would have done this... or has this aspect been overlooked? If we're gonna use 10 STS missions to build the station, we may as well be building a station which can be accelerated to the moon or Mars! please respond to this query, as this idea has been bothering me for awhile. I was thinking of writing to my friends at NASA HQ life sciences to ask if this idea was being pursued. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 04:31:07 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?) Newsgroups: sci.space Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Aurora spotted ? Summary: Expires: References: <1993Mar21.051658.17130@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1993Mar22.132915.1459@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1993Mar22.145826.19194@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: sci Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio Keywords: In article <1993Mar22.145826.19194@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes: > >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > >>When you can tell me who the PRIME CONTRACTOR is for your "ufos", > >>where they were built and are operated from, what their primary mission > >>is, and what the flight/propulsion characteristics are... > >Not sure where they are built, >No kiddin? :-> > > >but I do believe they operate from either Hangar 18 >"Hanger 18" is a MOVIE. > > >or the Area 51 base in Nevada (Dreamland) > >Now you are talking about AURORA, since those are just >nicknames for the Groom Lake fight test facility... > > >I think some are also based at Tonopah(sp?) > >Nope. F-117As operated there for quite a few years though. > > > :-) >No kiddin? :-> > > >BTW... newsFLASH... that was one hell of an ABORT!! > Just for the record, I was joking, and I don't buy any of the Hangar 18 captured UFO bs. The only spaceships I believe in are the ones that operate from KSC or Baiknonour :-) (and the DC-series, of course) My friends and I were debating about whether or not Columbia could have reached orbit if the engine failure had occured at T-zero. Once the SRB's ignite, they have no choice but to launch. I shudder to think what an RTLS abort would have been like with the extra weight of the Spacelab on board. Simon ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 07:14:38 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1onsgi$qee@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >I saw some old Air FOrce/ NASA footage on the old skin suits. >The fabric looked real hokey, and the NASA PM for suit technology >claimed it could only achieve 1.5 psi, and they needed 5, >so it was a triple suit. > >Now with new spandex, could a single layer produce between >3-5 lbs counterpressure? What you don't see in those films are the test subjects getting blood blisters and worse, several requiring emergency medical attention. Pure fabric pressure suits do poorly in joints, which is where they hold the advantage over normal suits (normal suits have difficulty bending, while fabric pressure suits can be much easier to move). If you get a little crease, suddenly it will start having bad things happen to the skin under the crease, etc. I have heard it rumored that some of those problems were solved, but the suit people I know and have talked to, both the Ames and Johnson teams, don't like the idea at all, and not because it's a threat. They have all sorts of sh*t land on them if people get hurt trying ideas out... -george william herbert Retro Aerospace ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 361 ------------------------------