Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 05:07:11 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #450 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 11 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 450 Today's Topics: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Biosphere II Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) (2 msgs) Fireball Reports 15/93 (2 msgs) Lockheeds Bus1 as a science platform. Michael Jordan in Space Problem Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience] Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage (2 msgs) The Legislative Intent of the Hatch Act Venus Lander for Venus Conditions. Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!) Will the launch be visible from NJ? 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: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:22:40 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q09m1$hme@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Given how little we know about SSTO, would it be worth taking an >S-II or S-IVB out of mothballs and rigging them for technology >testing? there should be at least two still around? and the support >gear is still mostly there. Unfortunately, while there are still Saturn stages around, most of them are not in what you would call flight-ready condition any more. They would need, at least, substantial overhauls. And while the bigger items of support gear are still mostly present, the little stuff is not. Bear in mind, also, that nobody certified those things for a twenty-year shelf life. Some of the Saturn IBs used for the Skylab crews, stored for only a few years between the end of production and the Skylab launches, needed repairs for problems that had developed in storage. In any case, there really is very little doubt that we can get a single stage into orbit. The big uncertainties are mostly associated with the return, landing, and turnaround, and demonstrating that kind of thing with the Saturn stages would require substantial modifications. A smaller vehicle like DC-X is, on the whole, a better approach to this. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 23:08:18 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Biosphere II Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q64fv$l5v@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes: >Studying large scale eco-systems are done today by--studying large eco-systems >in nature! In the real world, there is nothing like a closed system, and Bio- >sphere II is not a closed system either. The closest we get is by studying >various sized patches of forest left after logging companies have cut around >them. (This has been done with old growth forests with the cooperation with >logging companies). This way, we can study real world eco systems that >actually exist, rather than sticking a bunch of ill-equipped people in a >totally artificial environment. (By ill-equipped, I mean little things like >band-aids and anti-biotic were forgotten.) If you think understanding complex ecosystems the Biosphere method is bad, how can you even for a second defend doing so by current earth/natural observation methodologies??? Bio II is orders and orders of magnitude better controlled and observable than any ecosystem in nature. Claims that band-aids and antibiotic were forgotten are a) patently false, and b) an attempt to distract from the real issues. If you continue to do stupid argument tricks like that I'll stop debating you. I prefer to argue with rational people whose minds aren't made up. >What about thinking "Creation Science" or "Scientology" is bad science? If >you leave your mind open enough, people will throw garbage into it. Bio- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >sphere II is more of a media event than an experiment. That claim, sir, is bullshit. My mind is open at all times. That does not prevent me from being able to tell that there is no scientific merit to "Creation science" or "Scientology"; it just means that I actually listen to what they, and everyone else, say when they talk to me. I don't have to believe them, I just have to listen. >Like what variables ARE they keeping track of? Atmospheric composition. Plant growth, in magnificent detail. Animal growth, health, etc. Chemistry in their little lake. Have you actually read anything about the project, or just criticisms of it? It's not like they sealed themselves in for 2 years and are playing volleyball to pass the time. >Who considers Biosphere to be _the_ comparative model? Any scientists? I know a whole bunch of scientists who think it's that. I know a whole bunch more who think it's a total waste of time. >Agreed. But Biosphere is not a look even a remotely good overall look. >Its purpose was to determine the feasability of people living in an enclosed >environment, not to study a closed environment. It has totally failed to >do this, as at least one participant had to leave because of a cut, and >they've reportedly orderred out for pizza. Of course, none of this information >will likely ever be released, since the backers of Biosphere are not >scientists. Its purpose was to do both of those, pseudoscientific criticisms aside. The person who left was ILL, medically ill; if they'd been on a shuttle flight they'd have brought them down immediately. If they'd been on a ship at sea they'd have flown them so shore. They were in Bio II, so they cycled them through the airlock. [this from memory, ask Taber for more details...]. I've not heard any credible claim that they ordered out for Pizza. If you have a source, let me know. They claim to not be doing things like that, and I've talked to them about that. What they HAVE done is a) ran a CO2 absorbtion system when the CO2 percentage went up (turned it into carbonates, I think) b) eventually released some extra oxygen into the system when they started to have medical problems They didn't deny a), and have good records of how much CO2 was taken out when, etc. They publicized b) pretty well, I saw it in the paper here at the same time the Bio II people I know started talking about it. That they failed to keep the system totally closed is not a disaster; they know what they had to do to correct it, and can document what they did very very well. As a pure experiment, it was bad form, but it's more than just a lab testbed. It's not like they didn't keep track of what they were doing when they opened the system a bit. There are perfectly valid scientific criticisms of Biosphere II, some of which I don't know how to refute. As with most experiments, it's not simple or as closed as it "should" be, and its value in that light is debatable. I think it is of value, but it's by no means a clear cut issue. It really peeves me when people use untrue, nonscientific, or slanderous arguments to try and argue against its value. You perpetrate the exact same methodologies you argue against. Biosphere II has suffered from a particularly vehement opposition that while based in reasonable scientific critisisms has gone well beyond them. -george william herbert Retro Aerospace ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:13:13 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | |If memory serves -- and admittedly this was a while ago, and my reference |for it is lost somewhere in the mess on my desk -- the Gemini suit was |good for quite high temperatures at one atmosphere, for protection in |certain classes of launch failures. WOuld that be because they used Ejection seats, so the AStronaut/pilot may have had to eject through a potential fireball from the Titan? That would be a very short duration. 1-2 seconds by gut feel. Wouldn't that be significantl;y different then riding out a re-entry? Also from what i saw, the gemini suit wasn't exactly the wonder suit, being only marginally better then the mercury suit, which looked in the films i saw like a man shaped high pressure condom:-) The gemini suit must have been tolerable, i think on emission went 2 weeks, but were they in suits the whole time? pat Oh while we are on the suit question? Why do the shuttle astronauts wear a pressure suit at launch, then switch to the EVA suits? Are the EVA suits too bulky to operate the flight controls, and then handle the escape contingencies? Suits in general can't be that bad, the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury astronauts all wore the same suits through the mission. If they were in orbit, and took an emergency depress, would they re-don the pressure suits and then make an emergency de-orbit.(Aassuming the bird is still landable) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 02:02:21 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>... (some of the NASA suit designs have actually been very good >>>thermal insulation, good up to remarkably high temperatures). >>They are good to very high temperatures, but not pressures: Above >>1mbar they rapidly stop insulating, and by 10mbar they are almost >>worthless. >If memory serves -- and admittedly this was a while ago, and my reference >for it is lost somewhere in the mess on my desk -- the Gemini suit was >good for quite high temperatures at one atmosphere, for protection in >certain classes of launch failures. I'm not sure what sort of insulation the Gemini suits used. The insulation used in the Apollo and Shuttle suits (the material with the really impressive insulation properties) is very pressure sensitive. Possibly the Gemini suits used a less insulative material that worked even at 1 bar. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 20:03:00 +0200 From: Andre Knoefel Subject: Fireball Reports 15/93 Newsgroups: sci.space INTERNATIONAL METEOR ORGANIZATION *** FIREBALL DATA CENTER FIDAC e-mail report no. 15/93 =============================== 1993 Jan 02 03 26 UT Magnitude: -5 Zenithal magnitude: -5 Location: Cereste (France) ( 005deg 33'36'' E, 43deg 50'51'' N) First sighting: alpha=150deg, delta=+44deg End sighting: alpha=222deg, delta=+19deg Duration: 4 seconds Color: bl-wh Trail: - Persistent train: short, slightly or Fragmentation: - Velocity: very slow Sound: - Observer: B. Koch, S. Stapf 1993 Feb 25 09 52 55 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -5 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=-50deg End sighting: alpha=350deg, delta=-70deg Duration: 2 seconds Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: 3sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: 10deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 01 08 22 UT Magnitude: -11 Zenithal magnitude: -13 Location: Koromiko (New Zealand) ( 173deg 58'18'' E, 41deg 20'30'' S) First sighting: alpha=160deg, delta=+10deg End sighting: alpha=070deg, delta=+20deg Duration: 5 seconds Color: bl-wh Trail: - Persistent train: yes, 1sec Fragmentation: 6 ablates near end point Velocity: 5deg/sec Sound: - Observer: D.R. Goodman 1993 Mar 01 08 22 UT Magnitude: -13 Zenithal magnitude: -15 Location: Waikawa Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 03'00'' E, 41deg 15'48'' S) First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=+20deg End sighting: alpha=090deg, delta=+16deg Duration: 3 seconds Color: bl-wh Trail: - Persistent train: yes, 5sec Fragmentation: 3 abl. halfway,3 abl. end Velocity: 5deg/sec Sound: - Observer: C. Gittinger,M. Gittinger 1993 Mar 14 09 46 00 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -6 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=255deg, delta=-70deg End sighting: alpha=255deg, delta=-50deg Duration: 1.5 seconds Color: ye/wh Trail: - Persistent train: 5sec Fragmentation: 6 fragments at end point Velocity: 3deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 14 10 48 25 UT Magnitude: -6 Zenithal magnitude: -8 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 45'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=085deg, delta=-15deg End sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=+05deg Duration: 1 second Color: wh Trail: - Persistent train: 3sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: 20deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 20 11 44 UT Magnitude: -3 Zenithal magnitude: -3 Location: Descanso, CA (USA) ( 116deg 38'13'' W, 32deg 50'00'' N) First sighting: alpha=193deg, delta=+36deg End sighting: alpha=205deg, delta=+46deg Duration: 0.3 seconds Color: gr Trail: - Persistent train: 10sec Fragmentation: none Velocity: medium Sound: none Observer: G.J. Zay 1993 Mar 23 14 35 20 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -5 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=180deg, delta=-14deg End sighting: alpha=160deg, delta= 00deg Duration: 1 second Color: wh Trail: - Persistent train: 1sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: 20deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 24 09 43 35 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -6 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=010deg, delta=-70deg End sighting: alpha=025deg, delta=-55deg Duration: 0.5 seconds Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: - Fragmentation: - Velocity: - Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 26 08 07 46 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -5 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=070deg, delta=-75deg End sighting: alpha=015deg, delta=-55deg Duration: 1 second Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: 1sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: - Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 26 14 57 35 UT Magnitude: -6 Zenithal magnitude: -8 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=-52deg End sighting: alpha=100deg, delta=-50deg Duration: 4 seconds Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: 5sec Fragmentation: 1 abl. halfway,2 abl. en Velocity: 5deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 26 16 27 00 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -6 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=-65deg End sighting: alpha=100deg, delta=-55deg Duration: 1 second Color: wh Trail: - Persistent train: 1sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: - Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 27 14 58 30 UT Magnitude: -4 Zenithal magnitude: -6 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=040deg, delta=-80deg End sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=-60deg Duration: 1 second Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: 2sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: 20deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf 1993 Mar 27 16 03 36 UT Magnitude: -6 Zenithal magnitude: -7 Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand) ( 174deg 47'30'' E, 41deg 21'00'' S) First sighting: alpha=220deg, delta=-62deg End sighting: alpha=160deg, delta=-60deg Duration: 2 seconds Color: ye Trail: - Persistent train: 8sec Fragmentation: - Velocity: 20deg/sec Sound: - Observer: G. Wolf erratum: ======== (FIDAC e-mail report 14/93) 1993 Feb 22 22 12 45 UT Magnitude: -8 Zenithal magnitude: -10 Location: Saarbruecken (Germany) ( 007deg 03'42'' E, 49deg 12'52'' N) First sighting: alpha=045deg, delta=+40deg <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< End sighting: alpha=055deg, delta=+25deg <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Duration: - Color: gr Trail: - Persistent train: - Fragmentation: - Velocity: - Sound: - Observer: P. Schmeer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- International Meteor Organization * Fireball Data Center c/o Andre Knoefel, Saarbruecker Str. 8, D - 40476 Duesseldorf, Germany phone: (+49) 211:450-719 (tape) e-mail: starex@tron.GUN.de (Internet) 100114,3235 (CompuServe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FIREBALL REPORTS ARE WELCOME ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:58:44 GMT From: _Floor_ Subject: Fireball Reports 15/93 Newsgroups: sci.space Excuse my ignorance, but just what are these fireballs? _____ "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks / ___\ ___ __ ___ ___ _____________ gene@cs.wustl.edu | / __ / _ \ | / \ / _ \ | physics | gene@lechter.wustl.edu | \_\ \ | __/ | /\ | | __/ |racquetball| gev1@cec2.wustl.edu \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/ | volleyball| gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:36:56 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Lockheeds Bus1 as a science platform. Newsgroups: sci.space Apparently, lockheed is proposing to build SSF using Bus1 a declassified space craft uniform bus, about 13 ft by 9 ft in diameter, mildly tablet shaped. it is pre-wired for power, comms, etc and is shuttle rated. My question, would this make a good platform for planetary missions. would Galileo or MO type missions profit from using this standard bus, It does seem larger then a Mariner, and close in size to galileo. Granted for outer planets missions, youd toss the solar arrays for RTG's, but does anyone have any comment? pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 93 22:52:16 GMT From: David Fuzzy Wells Subject: Michael Jordan in Space Problem Newsgroups: sci.space > What is the largest body in the solar system on which, if Michael >Jordan jumped straight up, he would achieve escape velocity? > If I get a chance to ask Col. Doug Kirkpatrick, USAF, PhD, AIAA (and all the other acros that Nike put after his name), I will let you know. He just recently left our office and is now at the Academy. >>Note for the clueless: He was the Doc that explained how MJ overcomes the earth's gravity through the application of velocity in the vertical plane (thus producing a low-altitude earth orbit). Do ya' know?^3 Fuzzy. ============================================================================== _ __/| | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. \'o.O' | HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA | =(___)= | Space Debris Guru | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you U ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | wouldn't have come here." ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:19:59 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience] Newsgroups: sci.space Dont the russians have a third launch facility, at kapustin yar?????? what republic is that in? is it also unable to do proton work? What's the status of cape york, is that going up still? If the russians need leverage, wouldn't that work just as well? CY should be able to hit 51 degrees just as easily, or am i betraying a shocking ignorance of orbital mechanics. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 23:00:58 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q76vr$ad9@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >Oh sure. It's not perfect, but it'd be nice to scar the DC-X, >or DC-XA to fit them as an option. ALl C-130's carry JATO >scars, but i bet less then 1% of the fleet actually use them. > >My point was to draw out some hypothetical extenions to the >DC-X or DC-XA that may make some positive use for operational >missions out of a prototype test vehicle. > >Just a little food for thought. > This might work for DC-XA or any follow on. However, there is only ONE DC-X cradt as you know. I think it would be foolish to scar it now OR later for a possible commercial venture. Now would be a wate of time and money, and later presents its won headaches. This is going to be a test vechile that will undergo a lot of stress. Do we really want to have to maintain this so that we can try to make some money on it? Think of the Enterprise, it was never flown into space since it would have cost to much to modify it from a test article. Rather, Challanger (OV-99) was modified. If however, you want to take the lessons learned from DC-X, and build a DC-XA or two, that might make sense. >pat > ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:26:26 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: > Think of the Enterprise, it was never flown into >space since it would have cost to much to modify it from >a test article. Rather, Challanger (OV-99) was modified. If I have my facts straight, Enterprise was a flight article, OV-100. Just turned out, the vehicle needed more stiffening excess stress during the drop tests showed that, so they retired Enterprise OV-100 after completing the initial flight test program. because the strenghtening would eat up too much of the vehicles cargo capacity. Now what I don't understand, is granted Enterprise would have had 1/2 the cargo load of the others, but wouldn't it make sense to go ahead and fly her, to run the orbital test program, and maintain an ready to go vehicle for rapid reaction missions or light cargo runs? Keep her in the VAB tipped up with a canadaarm, and ready to go, or in the OPF ready for a cargo mission. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 93 16:24:05 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: The Legislative Intent of the Hatch Act A lot has changed since the Hatch Act was enacted in the late '30s. The huge federal budget has made "special interests" the "partisans" of modern politics as they battle for their piece of the federal budget. The fact that we now call many of these partisans "contractors" rather than "civil servants" and their particular pork-barrel bureaucracy "projects" rather than "political parties" is little more than a semantic fig-leaf. The positive feedback loop of political power is making the rape of the American people increasingly difficult to hide. The burgeoning failures of our society and the blurring distinction between Republicans and Democrats can be traced, in large measure, to these new special interest political parties which disguise themselves as government programs. Proper interpretation and enforcement the Hatch Act by the judicial and executive branches of the federal government could reverse our downward spiral without any intervention by the Congress, which is now totally controlled by these government-funded political parties. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:33:23 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Venus Lander for Venus Conditions. Newsgroups: sci.space it is probably easier to make the skin of the lander, not reactive. Diamond or teflon coatings. that sort of thing. pat ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:16:32 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!) Newsgroups: sci.space >In article stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: |>... Vulcan was supposed to have been |>observed by a somewhat dubious 'gentleman' astronomer who kept |>his notes on a plank of wood, and used plane as an eraser. Don't mistake the crudeness of surroundings for the quality of one's scientific venture. Raman developed his form of spectroscopy using a small telescope aimed at the sun, because they couldn't afford lasers. ( I think it may have even pre-dated lasers). Ramanujan did all his work while a govt clerk, and Einstein was just a miserable patent clerk. And Ovoshinsky, did his work in his basement. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 00:24:44 GMT From: "maurice.r.baker" Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ? Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space >In article <1993Apr9.050255.16767@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> b_egan@nac.enet.dec.com (Bob Egan) writes: >> >>2. after the main engine cutoff....i was VERY surprised to see the >>very bright white beacons it flashed at about 2-3 second rate. >>look like on on the back and one front. (or was I hullicinating ??) >> >>anybody know about these ????? >> Shhhhhhhh....those are the strobe lights on the COSMOSPHERES. They turn them on after the Shuttle has been grappled. More seriously, where are the abort landing sites for the Space Shuttle after a launch which essentially takes it up the east coast of the U.S. ? Seems as though there must be some equivalent of TAL, etc. Do they station teams and equipment at them ahead of time, or send crews, etc. out if an actual landing occurs ? How would the shuttle talk to the control tower -- do they have VHF or UHF aircraft radios on board [121.5, 243 Mhz., etc.] ? ------------------------------ Newsgroups: sci.space From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Organization: Motorola Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 19:00:59 GMT Message-Id: <1993Apr10.190059.8867@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> References: <36774@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> Sender: Net News Nntp-Posting-Host: 145.1.146.43 Lines: 41 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <36774@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes: >In article <24824@ksr.com+ clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >+In article ++jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >++ >++> [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either: >++> * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back, >++ >++Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or.... >+ >+... His death was due to natural causes, > >Zhores Medvedev says that Korolev, 60, died on the operating table January >14, 1966, after a botched operation for hemorrhoids. Pravda said >he died of "cardiac insufficiency" after a cancer operation. It was an operation to remove a tumor from the duodenum. According to the plan the operation was not serious but rather unpleasent. During the operation apparently another tumor was discovered and complications set in. Korolev apperently never regained consciousness. There are old rumors that the surgon, Petrovskiy (Minister of Health), was drunk. The operation was to last minutes, but instead took more than 5 hours and Korolev's heart could not take the strain. Korolev had suffered many health problems over the years including low blood pressure, head aches, etc.. Korolev's daughter (a doctor) speaks about it in a Canadian documentary about Korolev made in the last year or so. I will only comment breifly on the original subject. In recent talks with Georgi Grechko a lunar team cosmonaut, it is his impinion that the N-1 could have been made reliable after some more work (and it is unrealistic to believe it would have preformed any better than it did in its first flights). The biggest problem in his impinion was the lander. It was to primitive and while it COULD have worked the risk was to high and the losses were projected not to look good in comparison to the highly successful Apollo landings. So the project was stopped while they were still 'ahead' in the publics eyes, for it would only have gotten worse. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 450 ------------------------------