Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 05:14:35 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #434 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 8 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 434 Today's Topics: (Aero?)space query Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Commercial point of view Delta Clipper Archive Site International Space Year Compendium Martian "gold" Mining Deuterium(sp) on Venus? MIR NASA "Wraps" nuclear waste Plans, absence therof Portable Small Ground Station?dir Protectionism space food sticks SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? (2 msgs) Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? 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, 7 Apr 93 15:36:23 MDT From: ppl@hera.mcs.sdsmt.edu (PPL project) Subject: (Aero?)space query I am doing some research on airport security and I have some questions for people with knowledge of the technical aspects of the security failures that resulted in the Lockerbie explosion. Sorry for the non-space query, but it seems likely that many of you will have an overlapping interest. Please respond to ppl@hera.mcs.sdsmt.edu. - Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 21:35:35 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr6.121843.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes: >What would all of you out there in net land think of the big 6 (Martin >Mariatta, Boeing, Mcdonell Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Rockwell) >getting together, and forming a consortium to study exactly what the market >price pints are for building reusable launch vehicles... That it was another scheme for sucking money out of the taxpayers' pockets while delaying actual hardware construction unnecessarily. Why bother with the stupid consortium? *All* the bidders in the SDIO SSTO competition agreed that the specs could be met, and they presented three different designs for it. There is no *need* to fool around with more feasibility studies or configuration game-playing or technology development. What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator. It need not be a full-scale transport prototype, and indeed it need not be manned, but it must go into orbit repeatedly. This is the final proof that the approach is workable, and it is a step we will be ready to take after the DC-X tests (if we aren't already -- a debatable point). There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries yet again. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:01:27 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Commercial point of view Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: >But, I guess I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is. I have been, at various times, invested in Comsat, Qualcomm, GM-H (Hughes), and Orbital Sciences, companies heavily involved in space or strongly space-related business. I also have to pay taxes to fund NASA et. al. But my main point, again, is that business style planning should be used even when there is no immediate intention to start a business; eg to guide NASA's R&D decisions based on long-term industrial competitiveness. We space fans should use exploratory business planning to develop new visions for the self-sustaining development and settlement of space. This gives us a keen awareness of how our goals relate to other people's, and what kind of exploration, technology, etc. are needed to minimize the cost of meeting our goals. >>[central planning] > Then tell me, why did oyu mention it? Obviously because >you believe it dominates today's space program. However, we weren't >discussing it. I certainly was discussing it; my main point in this thread, & the original post you responded to, is describing how planning for commerce and industrial competitiveness is different from traditional central planning, and why we should use the techniques of the former for long-range planning & creating visions. To my way of thinking, your challenge of "put your money where your mouth is" is off the topic; I never mentioned personal investing. But I understand why you took it in that direction, triggered by the phrase "business plan", so it wasn't like introducing rock climbing. > Hmm, so having a goal of an active affordable self-supporting >presence in space is bad. No, that's fine, as long as we realize (a) many other people don't share that goal, and (b) figure out how our goal relates, in terms of technology, sharing resources, etc., to other people's goals. With self-sustaining space development we meet a large number of people's wants & needs regardless of whether those are the same as ours, but with an eye on developing the tech we need to meet our goals. My objections is to setting certain specific goals (eg base on Mars) at the expense of others (eg comet mining), as has been done in the space community (eg the ratio of funding for studies of these alternatives is >1,000:1, with no good financial or technical reason for such a bias). >...the reasons for using business style >planning? Why then use it if you don't ultimately start >a business? The key here is "ultimately". Many kinds of businesses will help us reach the goal of space settlement (or other goals you might have) but are not quite economical today, for reasons of launch costs, technology, materials availability, etc. Similarly, one of NASA's main tasks these days is to foster U.S. industrial competiveness. If we are to make such businesses possible, or NASA is to achieve its goal of fostering competivness, we need to anticipate what kinds of businesses will be viable. We do that through exploratory business planning along diverse development pathways, rather than the obsolete single-vision, fixed-timeframe, divorced from human needs methodology that has dominated NASA and the space movement until now, leading to massively expensive failures and shattered dreams. (To see this destructive mindset still at work, cf. the quotes from the recent PBS TV special about how we "WILL HAVE" bases on the moon and Mars by certain dates). I also accept your apologies, and I hope we are closer to a mutual understanding now. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 19:58:29 GMT From: "Chris W. Johnson" Subject: Delta Clipper Archive Site Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.101401.13908@sei.cmu.edu> Joyce Tokar, tokarj@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu writes: > [....] I read [the Analog article] this morning at the breakfast table; > got so excited and scanned all boards containing 'space' in their names. > That is how I find this thread. People new to this thread, or those just looking for pictures and past articles concerning the Delta Clipper project, may want to take a look at the totally unofficial Delta Clipper anonymous ftp site maintained in the pub/delta-clipper directory of bongo.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.13). Most of the more informative articles on the program that have appeared in sci.space in the last couple of months are there. Pictures (real and artists conceptions) are also there to be found. In the area of coming attractions, several people on the net have been kind enough to offer to provide me with pictures from the Apr. 3 rollout in the not too distant future. As soon as I see 'em, you'll see 'em. :-) If anyone out there has additional materials related to the project that they'd like to make available, there's a world-writeable (bot NOT readable) directory named "incoming" to which you can upload them. Just drop me line to let me know what's arrived. Cheers. ----Chris Chris W. Johnson Internet: chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj CompuServe: >INTERNET:chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu AppleLink: chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu@internet# ...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 18:25:00 GMT From: David Ward Subject: International Space Year Compendium Newsgroups: sci.space From: MX%"schaefer@ares.decnet.lockheed.com" 7-APR-1993 12:44:29.16 Hi, I don't have post privileges, and found this, and assume the sci.space readers would be interested. bob s. Article 2671 of sci.edu: Xref: rapnet alt.education.distance:532 sci.edu:2671 Path: rapnet!butch!netcomsv!decwrl!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!exucom.exu.ericsson.se!ericom!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!pbs.org!tflavell From: tflavell@pbs.org Newsgroups: alt.education.distance,sci.edu,k12.ed.science Subject: REPOST: Space Resources Compendium Message-ID: <1993Apr1.160832.24040@pbs.org> Date: 1 Apr 93 21:08:32 GMT Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA Lines: 25 TO: Education Liasons, School Librarians, ITV Coordinators FR: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service RE: Space Compendium DT: January 15, 1993 INVESTIGATE AND CELEBRATE SPACE EXPLORATION! The "1992 International Space Year" Compendium has been jointly produced by PBS E/SS and the Student Space Foundation with support from the National Science Teachers Association's Space, Science & Technology Division to assist educators in grades K-12 in their planning and celebration for the 1992 International Year of Space. It is also designed to help educators and students investigate and celebrate space exploration for many years to come. This comprehensive compendium lists hundreds of classroom resources, including videos, books, research reports, posters, computer software, space societies, teacher training workshops, music, and more! Parents may also find this useful in supporting budding scientists/astronomers. 135 pgs. To order copies of the compendium, send a $10.00 check to: PBS E/SS; Space Compendium; Att: Tom; 1320 Braddock Place; Alexandria, VA 22314-1698. SORRY, NO PURCHASE ORDERS ACCEPTED. END ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 18:14:37 GMT From: Jeff Bytof - SIO Subject: Martian "gold" Newsgroups: sci.space Probably by far the most valuable material to be "mined" on Mars will be evidence and/or remains of life forms, if any are found. -Jeff Bytof member, technical staff Institute for Remote Exploration (IREX) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 16:35:04 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Mining Deuterium(sp) on Venus? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.024412.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Other odd question or thought.. > >If Venus has alot of Deuterium(sp) (isetope of Hydrogen) is it worth our while >and energy to go there to "mine" it?? And if we mine is, what can we use it >for? >Space Ships to Mars and beyond? or Would Jupiter be better?? >I know I have heard mention that Deuterium(sp) is good for nuclear reactions in >some ways.. And good to be used in a Star Ship to another solar system.. Deuterium is more abundant *in relation to ordinary hydrogen*, on Venus, but it is not more abundant than on Earth because *all* forms of hydrogen are less common on Venus. The gas giants are much better filling stations than Venus, but their deep gravity wells, and harsh radiation environments, make getting such materials there difficult as well. Deuterium in any quanity we are likely to ever want can be easily separated from seawater. There's no need to go elsewhere for it. 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: 7 Apr 1993 14:31:11 -0400 From: Pat Subject: MIR Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.131421.129@ludens.elte.hu> meszena@ludens.elte.hu writes: >How does it compare to the current (?) version of SSF? What are the kosmonauts It's Flying, SSF is going through another re-design and de-scoping. pat ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 13:14 PST From: SCOTT I CHASE Subject: NASA "Wraps" Newsgroups: sci.space In article <6APR199317080334@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov>, dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes... >Finally, the money raised by the 'tax' does not all >go into a 'slush fund.' At Lewis, the director >does control a small discretionary fund. Each year, >any individual at Lewis can submit a proposal to >the director to get money from this fund to look >at pretty much anything within the Lewis Charter. I believe that at all the National Labs, there is a Director's Fund, which is spent at his discretion. It is usually quite small, and used to fund a few projects which, though within the mission of the Lab, and scientifically interesting (at least to the Director and those who "carry" the proposal, such as some divisional director), for whatever reason did not get funded by the regular channels. At LBL, these projects tend to be some of the more speculative or long-lead-time R&D projects. This is a good mechanism for (a) putting a few dollars into the hands of people on the scene, rather than relying on the Suits at DOE headquarters to identify all the interesting research proposals, (b) luring good people to the Directorship of a Lab, by giving them some direct control over the direction of at least a few research projects, and (c) building morale at the Lab by giving the Small People a way to get small amounts of money to work on projects which interest them even if they can't convince enough folks at DOE that they should fund it. -Scott -------------------- Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell, SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having been a single cell so long ago myself that I have no memory at all of that stage of my life." - Lewis Thomas ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 17:25:39 -0400 From: Pat Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr6.210827.2383@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |In <1psg95$ree@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: | |[On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...] | |>How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't |>do it? Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-) | |>Gee fred. After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology |>for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like |>this. | |I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than |everyone else, Pat. Just a *few* corrections: | |1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable |to GO LOOK AT. | There is an awful big difference between LOOKING at a technology and making it a design spec item. When i groused about wasting Engineering dollars on a highly speculative research area, you Launched into the cave man defense. Here, someone proposes a research area, for a non-critical project of high social utility, and you start saying " I will believe it, when I see it". Not very consistent, by my book. |2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of |the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply |doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to |become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility |(sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a |down-side that was too expensive to overcome). | I worry that the DC-X,Y will not achieve it's goals too, but somehow I don't seem to be as negative when hypothesizing about real world goals. pat ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 17:36:54 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.123624.19524@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |In <1pg59o$9ae@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: | |>In article <1993Mar31.181956.1705@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: | |>NASA employees, like other federal workers are prohibited under the Hatch |>act from engaging in Political campaigns on any level. | |Speaking of grossly overly-simplifying, I *think* you just did. I |assume that this would also apply to military personnel (as government |employees)? If the rules are the same, you have misstated the |situation. In the military, my only restrictions on egnaging in |political campaigns were that I couldn't use government property to do |it, I couldn't represent myself as representing the opinion of the |service, I couldn't do it on government property, and I couldn't do it |in uniform. I suspect that the rules for NASA personnel are similar |and that there is no absolute prohibition about engaging in political |campaigns. | Here I am going to have to defer to Greater Authority. What are the standing NASA regs on Hatch? I know over here, I keep reading about how GS employees here in DC can't campaign for local municipal elections. It causes great distress, in fact given the poor caliber of DC government that the Federal Workforce who are besieged by DC municpal failures cannot band together to throw the bums out. I know there are always disputes on people even wearing campaign buttons to work and i have heard of disputes on passing out campaign literature even when off federal property. I don't know what the military rules are, but I've noted a strong tendency for them to avoid getting close in any way to local political battles. When i was in, i got cautioned for chatting with some strikers, while in uniform. Possible perceptions of being seen supporting a local employee strike. Maybe Mary or Ron can comment on what the rules are? |>They are also |>prohibited from taking remuneration from outside sources, although a recent |>appellate court ruling has confused things. | |The prohibition has never been all that absolute, otherwise people |wouldn't be able to moonlight (which you are allowed to do). | The rules keep changing. Outside jobs have been a bit questionable at times, although a lot of groups use the washington post rule. "Can the action withstand being on the cover of the Post". And until the recent appelatte court ruling, I think the ruling did cover moonlighting jobs too. |>I would say that being |>paid by an organization that lobbies for Space would be questionable. | |Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. I would only consider this |questionable if the organization was lobbying for things that would |directly affect the NASA employee and over which he or she had some |sort of cognizance or control. | Yeah, but what if the organization was using the employee to give advanced access to not yet public information? It creates teh specter of conflict of Interest. Let employees moonlight for areas further away from their government jobs. it's simpler. > >>Now as for engaging in PRish activities or responding to requests for infor >>mation is part of their charter to educate the public. I am sure >>Mary or one of the other NASA employees, Ron, Peter, can cite the exact >>agency guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable use of Government time >>or Equipment. > >>I have always welcomed a free-form debate from NASA employees and their >>contractors, provided it remains within the constraints elucidated >>above. > >> While Nick may be off-base on his statements about Devine in particular, >>he does have a general point, which you seem not to recognize fred. > >I "seem not to recognize" his "general point" because he was making a Don't listen too closely to everything nick says. It helps keep your blood pressure down :-) But if one of the NASA employees here can comment on how hatch applies, I wouldn't mind hearing it from the horses mouth. pat ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 14:24:50 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Portable Small Ground Station?dir Newsgroups: sci.space |The DSN stations are different, and aren't used to monitor Shuttle. |These stations use huge antennas to gather in the very faint signals |no hope of duplicating them on an amateur budget. It may be possible to pick up a scrap radio astronomy antenna from a government junk yard. I know of one guy who did get one. I think it was a 13 Meter diameter dish. Now i doubt an amatuer would have the money to build the tracking pedestal, that's probably $500,000 assuming you got all the steel works. But it might come with the LNA's and spectrum analyzers and high resolution recorders, but to do Satellitte commanding you'd need the digital command modems. That's a real tough one. It may be possible for an amatuer to get enough gear to compete with a university radio science station, but youd have to settle for limited traverses and look angles. ALso, to send commands, you need transmitters and LOTS of power. I can imagine how much power DSN uses when they talk to voyager. pat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 22:57:48 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Protectionism Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.econ gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >there's a 15% tax break to companies exporting raw logs from the > Pacific Northwest to Japanese furniture factories. Wrong. Another popular myth making the rounds. There's a 15% tax break on any export, including high-value-add wood products like furniture, because we want to cut the trade deficit. The reason Japanese buy raw logs is straightforward: they have important, exacting standards unique to their culture which U.S. mills have been unable or unwilling to meet. These standards range from the simple (cutting in metric dimensions) to the complex (Japanese archictectural traditions & standards, including unique designs for earthquake protection). Also note Japanese would rather use PNW wood, grown in a climate similar to theirs, than tropical wood. They pay a premium for both raw logs & finished wood products from here in the PNW. BTW, there is now a strong statist incentive _against_ raw log exports: such exports of logs from state & federal lands are now illegal, another stupid measure that protects low-skill, low-wage jobs (eg raw log lumbering) and discourages high-skill, high-wage jobs (eg building finished wood products for the Japanese market). Of course, it's much easier to claim to be patriotic and Japan-bash than to try to learn something about another culture so that one can do business with them. It's much easier to make up and propagate myths about "subsidizing raw log export" than to admit and correct our own shortcomings that have caused the problem. >More serious examples of government policies causing jobs to be exported >are the minimum wage laws, the tax code, and environmental regulation. I largely agree with you here. Followups to sci.econ. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 19:49:04 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space In article , erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks) writes: >John Elson (jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: >: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This >: was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along >: with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people >: who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy. >: Any information would be greatly appreciated. > >I also remember eating (and loving) these during the early '70s. I tried to >track them down a few years ago and was informed that they have probably >not been manufactured for at least 20 years and that the ones I ate were >undoubtably several years old at the time. Has anyone noticed that articles in this thread are normally very close to articles in the nuclear waste thread? Just coincidence, I guess :-) -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com |about other things. PADI DM-54909 | ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 20:23:48 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1phv59$isn@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) wrote: > > > Where are the meetings? > > pat Goldin said during the press briefing that they would be in Crystal City by the beltway in DC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 16:30:04 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.024031.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Idea or thought.. > >What materials would a commerical company need or want to get from Mars? > >All I can think of is maybe some high risk, high cost materials that normally >can not be found in great quantities or have already been mined out (at least >easily accesible mined out).. What could mars offer to a commercial company to >exploit the minerals on Mars?? Just things.. Can anybody give me an answer or >ideas?? Basically there's nothing on Mars we don't have in greater abundance right here. When you add in the astronomical transport costs, there's nothing on Mars worth bringing back to Earth. However, Mars' gravity well is less deep than Earth's. It would be cheaper to launch Martian material to solar orbit than to launch that material from Earth. So if production costs on Mars drop to levels not too greatly higher than those on Earth, it would make sense to use Martian native materials for systems in solar orbit. There is a much more attractive source of native materials, however. That's the asteroids and comets. They have no real gravity wells of their own, being already in solar orbit. Only orbital transfer costs are required to get them where needed. The catch, if it is one, is that they have to be processed in space. There's no proof that it's cheaper to conduct most industrial processes in space than in a gravity well. It's also true that labor costs are much lower on Earth than anywhere else in the solar system. Unless a way is found around that, extraterrestrial materials will likely remain a curiousity. 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 20:36:23 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.173857.1883@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bernhardt.Saini-eidukat@launchpad.unc.edu (Bernhardt Saini-eidukat) writes: >According to R.G. Burns and D.S. Fisher (Journal of Geophysical Research, >vol. B95, p. 14,169-14,193, 1990) "ultramafic Fe-Ni sulfides and perhaps >iron-rich sediments (gossans and abiotic banded iron formations) derived >from chemical weathering of the basaltic crust, as well as cumulate chromites, >are likely to be the only ore deposits present on Mars." Almost certainly there should have been an "in quantity" on the end of that. Ores are almost by definition the result of rare events, circumstances where some process, or more than one, went to an extreme. We do not understand Mars's geology well enough to make such a broad statement without further qualification. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 17:17:00 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.124139.19838@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |>| |>|I don't have to misrepresent your position, nor did I. No one should |>|ever actually *use* anything until it's a catalog item -- except it |>|ain't gonna become a catalog item until after it's in widespread use. |>| | |>Actually, most things become catalog items, after some reasonable |>engineering developement program. Something i've never seen |>SSF engage in. | |Well, that turns out not to be the case. In any case, your lack of |knowledge ("I've never seen") is more a ringing condemnation of your |lack of knowledge than of their lack of engineering development. | Gee Fred. I looked in the Thompson Catalog, and couldn't find an entry for High Frequency Circuit Breakers, Transformers, Fans or Motors. I can find 400 Hz rated equipment to do the above. Please direct me to a better catalog. |>> |>>Nice to be told what I "can't believe". And here all this time I |>>thought that *I* would be the one to tell people that. You don't get |>>a 'proven trackrecord' until it's in widespread use, Pat. Except it |>>can never go into widespread use because it must have a 'proven |>>trackrecord' before anyone should use it for anything. |>> |>I guess the X-15 doesn't count for proving technology? | |Well, you just lost me, Pat. This comment is supposed to be germane |to something that was said before it? | You get a proven track record after a experimental program proves it works. Without bizarre interactions to the environment. That was the whole point of Mercury and Gemini. They were building experience for Manned Space. That's what teh X-15 was doing, building experience, for Hypersonic winged vehicles. AS Mary has pointed out, that program delivered a number of firsts. If SSF has as a program objective, building an SSX a simple prototype to test in-orbit assembly, truss behavior, docking modules, High Frequency Power........ then I'd believe that SSF has an engineering test program. This weeks Space News covers more on the SSF redesign, where people are criticizing the total lack of a evolutionary approach in the Freedom program. |>>[Really? Where'd you get the egg?] |>My refrigerator. |But does the light *really* go off when the door is closed? Not if it's a 20 Khz light. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 434 ------------------------------