Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:21:11 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #570 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 14 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 570 Today's Topics: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like? Draft of SSTO report language (2 msgs) HST re-boost mission. HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days International Space Observatory Life on Earth (and elsewhere) Life on Mars. Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Near Miss Asteroids (Q) Over zealous shuttle critics Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? PLEASE give it a rest Space books from Krieger STS-57 inclination? Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) 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: 13 May 1993 22:51:36 -0400 From: Pat Subject: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May11.222412.26691@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1993May10.221221.3012@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: | |>I was a test subject in that thing. They're calling it the Pre-flight |>Adaptation Trainer (PAT). Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC) |>seems to be in charge. | |Hey, a gadget designed to make you barf and it's named PAT. Now, |that's so nigh-on to a perfect straight line that I can't pass up >comment. ;-) fred, You are off base once again. The naming convention is the big P, is reserved for Patrick Klavenberg in the netherlands. Just like Fred is reserved for SSF, you little f;-) pat ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 22:57:26 -0400 From: Pat Subject: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May2.015028.1529@nugget.rmNUG.ORG> raptor!rlove (Robert B. Love ) writes: |I have over 2 hours in free fall aboard the KC-135 and have |participated in the spinning chairs, acceleration sled and electro-shock ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |experiments. The immediate panic that goes along with falling Most people who do this, don't volunteer for this one. Does this say something about NASA employees:-) pat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 00:53:29 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Draft of SSTO report language Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >Below is the draft language of the report language to support SSRT. I just >got permission to publish it so here it is. I also have a couple of new >tidbits which I will post shortly. >Draft Report Language >-- For Inclusion in the >FY '94 DoD Authorization Bill >The first ATD vehicle, the DC-X1, is on schedule and within >budget, and positive conclusive results are expected by the end >of fiscal year 1993. The second ATD vehicle, the DC-X2,is >scheduled to begin development in fiscal year 1994. Could someone explain what the DC-X2 is? Is this similar to the X prime or something else? -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Find a way or make one." -attributed to Hannibal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 01:42:18 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Draft of SSTO report language Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >Could someone explain what the DC-X2 is? Is this similar to the X prime or >something else? It is a concept vehicle which could,with modification, reach orbit. Concepts and names where flying around fast and furious for a while but it seems to be settling down now. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 22:23:46 -0400 From: Pat Subject: HST re-boost mission. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May11.200039.20298@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1seuk9$6ta@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > | |You're the one who wants to justify this 'cobble', Pat. You can't |justify risking a $1G instrument by waving your hands and saying, "It |will cope." | And every time i say it needs further analysis, you promptly hop up on your soapbox and snidely claim, i wouldn't know it if i saw it. hardly constructive criticism, fred. i am assuming the HST is fundamentally axially symetric on it's mass distribution, and that any ESMT(expendable space manuevering tug) would also be fundamentally axially symetric on the thrust vector even during fuel burns. THis is not really a large leap of faith, and that any small errors i am assuming would be covered by the GNC(Guidance Navigation and COntrol system). Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with these assumptions? |>Considering that Bus1 already has a full set of GNC hardware, |>I somehow doubt that it lacks the basic capacity. Of course, |>i am still waiting for the basic specs to be de-classified. | |Well, except for more tankage, more engines, a spatter shield, |explosive connection devices, maybe a couple of arms so it can attach |the bolts, ... | Maybe more tankage, the thing is already pretty capable. i think it uis used on atmospheric diving missions. Engines may need uprating for an extended burn. nobody knows the burn rating on the engines. i assume they are already rated for re-light, it's just an ESMT mission may require appx 600 seconds of burn time, and no-one knows what the burn time of the existing motors are. it's still classified. The spatter shield is just a proposal to reduce contamination which seems to be your Hot Button. assuming the flight vectors are well done, the contamination may not be relevant. as you refuse to recognize, the STS RCS system has a potential to hose the HST down with hyydrazine fumes too. my idea at least puts all the thrusters behind the direction of flight. Any arms, would be field assembled brackets. id imagine the astronauts would EVA out and attach them to some of the AFT handles on the HST. Do you think NASA is incapable of bending some metal for this? after the mission, a cutting charge would seperate these from the ESMT. sure the bracket stubs may end up attached to the HST, but they shouldn't affect the continuing mission. | |Gee, mindreading now, Pat? I certainly 'hate' your approach to it, |which is that you like it and flame down anyone who questions you on |it or points out problems. I don't care if you have your cat sign off |on it. Either explain how you adjust for the flaws (or at least show |that you bothered to think about them) or don't expect anyone to give |your idea any credibility. | Fred, me flame? hardly. get long pedantic and fixated, yes. but flaming is much more your thing. |>>>You have heard of explosive bolts? |>> |>>Oh yes. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd want to use for detaching a |>>tug from service points on a $1G instrument. They are, after all, |>>*explosive* bolts. They're not named that for the fun of it. |>> | |>Let me know when terrorists start using these to blow up the |>world trade center. | |Cute, but stupid. This seems to be the tone for most of your remarks. | Gee fred. it may really help you to do a little research before you call names. Did you know the the HST has several explosive seperators internally? inside the optical path? they are used as emercgency devices if an optical instrument freezes up and blocks the other instruments. and considering the HST is rated for shuttle take off and landing and EVA activity, it is designed for people banging around it, and 3 G vibration. somehow i think any explosive seperator can be kept within these limits. The lockheed guys claim their super zip seperator will only apply a 1 g shock. Are you going to accuse them of lying? |>My understanding from talking to one of the lockheed people |>is that the shock from firing their patented contamination |>free explosive bolt the super zip seperator, is that the |>g-shock is under 1 gee. | |Yes, but I question whether any explosive bolt is 'contamination |free', any more than you're going to find a watch that is truly 'shock |proof' or 'water proof'. I think you can expect both small metal |particles and residue from combusted explosive when those bolts go. |You mgith also want to consider what a 1g jolt does to the solar |panels. I don't know if they will take it or not -- do you? Or have |you just 'assumed' once again that everything will work and that |anything that doesn't will fail in benign ways? | Why don't you read up on the device? zero gas products, and they have a 99% reliable zero particle release system. they think it's actual quality is much higher, but they haven't spent the money to test it further. it's still the best device on the market. Tell you what. You write lockheed, get the data, and you use your brilliant mind to see how good the device actually is. It might be more productive then sitting in the dark and griping. as for the solar arrays. I guess it'd need some analysis. When i can get the HST design specs, i'll look it up. maybe theyd have to do this sort of thing while the Arrays are furled. depends on how reliable the array deploy mechanism is. wether it requires an AStronaut on stnadby EVA. I would hope that a $1G instrument is designed to take a little shock and vibration. of course given it's poor performance to date, maybe it hasn't been. that might be part of the problem. |>But I forget these are *explosive* bolts. and of course |>you know more then I do. | |Well, so far it seems so, judging by your inability or unwillingness |to seriously discuss any of the shortcomings of your proposal, or even |behave as if they had occurred to you. | AS if you have seriously discussed anything either? You wave around an idea like contamination, like a red flag, but never actually discuss the parameters that it exists in. | |Assuming, of course, that there are attachment points aft. | |>Somehow, id imagine any ESMT would also be mostly axially |>symetric, and given the space inside a BUS1, there should be |>plenty of space for atttaching trim weights. You have heard |>of trim weights. | |Yes, I have. Who's going to adjust them on orbit? Let's see what |we're up to, now. We have bigger engines, more tankage, an attachment |unit with explosive bolts (assuming you want to drill holes in the |unit to be moved to attach them), and now we have a bunch of chunks of |pig iron for trim weights. We also, presumably, have some mechanism |for moving the weights around under remote control, unless this |vehicle is supposed to be a one-shot and/or we assume that there are |no changes in center of mass of the vehicle as you burn fuel and/or we |assume that all payloads will have the same mass distribution around |some axis (at the end of which they will all presumably have holes |drilled for attachment of your explosive bolts). | Who has to adjust any trim weights in orbit? the HST is well enough documented, that any trim weights would be installed on the ground. and as for other missions, that's for other missions. | |Ok, we're now up to: bigger tanks, bigger or more engines, a spatter |shield, a system of explosive bolts for attachment, a dynamic |ballasting system for mass distribution control, reaction wheels |and/or magneto-torquers. Yep, sure sounds like we don't even need to |test it, being as it's based on that good old reliable Bus1. | I think the Bus, already has most of these systems. |Oh, and please settle on an acronym for what you want to call this |cobbled-together 'thing' of yours. | If you tried reading rather then flaming, you'd see i use the term ESMT (Expendable space manuevering tug). i've used it in other posts. |>And please cite, where you read that *explosive* bolts |>Float contaminants all over the place? my understanding is they |>are scored to neatly break up. and lockheed markets a contamination |>free explosive seperator, but that just wouldn't fit your |>view of the world. After all, it was designed by a PE. | |I wouldn't bet on it (being designed by a PE). Were I you, I would |also check just how much contamination something can have and still be |'contamination free'. | WHy don't you call lockheed and ask them. ? |>and also, you have never explained, how a constantly accelerating |>package, with the occasional thruster burn from the aft, would >>have particles go forward and around into the optics. ASsume >>that no RCS jets are pointed forward. all thrusters are perpendicular >>to the direction of velocity or point aft. >>i would be curious to see your explanation. > >Gee, Pat, at some point you have to do things like turn, circularize >the new orbit, move your little cobbled-together 'thing' away from the >HST, etc. Is that enough for you to work on, or do you need some >more? > Gee, I always thought circularizing burns were conducted in the direction of flight at the Apogee? how does that put reaction products forward? Any turns can be done by the reaction wheels. And a move off can be conducted by spring seperators, and then use reaction thrusters once a little ways off. You forget, when the HST was deployed, what deployed it? the shuttle? and how did it do it? by some fancy flying to keep the thrusters pointed away. What says the ESMT can't do the same thing? > >>So do you come up with original ideas, or just criticize everyone >>else? Do you get paid to do this at work? What a job title. >>staff kvetch. >>:-) > >If you can't stand the criticism, I would suggest you think your ideas >through better before you start touting them as 'the' solution to a >problem we don't even have right now. > Gee fred. according to you we dont have a problem. you must be one of those people who says the deficit doesn't matter either. as i see it, there is a problem. Do you know what it is? the problem is the re-boost mission parameters make the alllowed weight to the STS very small. enough so they cant carry EDO packs, spare suits, the other repair hardware. all because the massive STS has to tow the HST up to it's terminal orbit. Everytime, they increase the spacewalking budget, they are sacrifing re-boost fuel. AN ESMT may allow both missions to co-exist without one stealing from the other. That's teh problem as i see it. > >Oh, I see. Now on top of simply assuming away problems and assuming >in benign failure modes, Pat will just handwave away criticism as >"groundless". Sure, Pat. *I* am realy impressed with this idea now! > >Yeah, it has to be good enough. You haven't demonstrated that it will >be, or that you've even given any thought to potential problems. >Nothing like that 'sound engineering analysis', is there, Pat? > I somehow think the folks at marshall could conduct the proper analysis, and document it. But i forget, they are busy working on Fred, and cant work on other tasks. >>And so what is so different from a KH-12 and a HST. they are both >>in low orbit, they use 2.5 meter optics, and quality of optical, >>IR and near UV collection is vital. A KH-12, like the HST is the maximum >>size bird for the HST. > >Someone else already answered this. If you don't think mission >affects the design of the instrument, I don't know what anyone can do >to convince you. > AS was pointed out, the KH-12 doesn't look into high UV, but how many intruments on the HST use this? and show how the STS has less contamination? oh i forget, bigger mass, acts as ashield. you better hope the forward RCS thrusters don't fire. > >One big difference is that one is designed into the spacecraft from >the start while the other is 'cobbled together' and then just pasted >onto the instrument with explosive separators. Different instruments >on HST, some of which are more sensitive to contamination than others. >Because it was designed to have thrusters in it, KH-12 probably is >built to minimize possibility of contamination of the optics (through >use of isolation, doors, location of optics vice thrusters, or any >number of other things). Was HST? One is an astronomical instrument, >Pat. That leads to a somewhat different design than an earth >surveillance package. > >>>>so somehow, i dount that stray CO2, or H2O would really wreck >>>>up the HST. >>> >>>I don't consider "well, Pat doubts it will be a problem" to be >>>particularly convincing. WHy don't you cite some sources,then, or some people who actually do this for a living. I at least got to talk to some of lockheeds people who work on these for a living. and none of them were real freaked out with the concept. and Lockheed built the HST. pat ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 22:46:33 -0400 From: Pat Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1993May13.080042.1@stsci.edu> dempsey@stsci.edu writes: >> Of course, isn't it odd that someone would get burned for >> posting to a public forum. >Not when public reletions for a big public project is so >very important. > Shouldn't the project work be more important then the spin polish placed on it by the Flacks? this is science, not politics. >It is becuase sometimes people post incorrect information or inappropriately. >All they want is that the PR people handle things, for good or ill, >and I don't think that is unreasonable. No one is being prevented from >posting, they just want people to very careful. > That's what a standard disclaimer is for. >> so you should remind them that because the taxpayers pay for >> AURA, we are entitled to all information a tthe institute, >> except for data which is held backa s a courtesy to the PI's. >> > >Do you want the staplers and paper clips too we use? You pay for >defense projects too and you are not entittle to any information from them. > There is a significant difference between information which is intangible, and staplers which are tangible. And defense data is excluded under the FOIA, by statute. But i am entitled to DOD logistical data, or performance specs on non classified systems, or on science projects. Staplers cost money. information does not constitute mis allocation of government resources. >> actually even the DATA is public, and under FOIA, cannot be withheld. >> > >Maybe, but you have not made the investment of time and energy that the >PI's have either. True, but when the PI's pay for the instruments themselves, I'll shut up, and F*** off. if it's paid for with tax dollars i'll point out that it is also my information. This is thoroughly consistent with my opinion on Bio-sphere 2, which being thoroughly privately funded, that the "keepers of the scientific" flame, should piss off and leave alone. they can grouse about "unscientific behavior" on publicly funded projects like cold fusion or poly water. pat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:05:35 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: International Space Observatory Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.233544.22032@Princeton.EDU> carlosn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Carlos Guillermo Niederstrasser) writes: >Does anyone know what the current status of ESA's International Space >Observatory (ISO) is? I have read several articles, but they are all at >least two years old. ISO is badly behind schedule because of some technical problems. The latest launch schedule (as listed in the Feb ESA Bulletin) is mid-1995. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 93 21:29:14 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Life on Earth (and elsewhere) James Davis Nicoll writes: >> Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards >>a specific goal. Pat sez; >IT is directed, but not at one particular endpoint. >The direction is to out compete all other life forms >in your niche, and all other entities for resources, for reproduction. It might be more accurate to say the direction of evolution (as opposed to competition) is to make a new niche, or a new life-form for an unused niche. Like us and space. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 22:30:18 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio I was thinking the data on macro moecular self assembly points towards life being a self forming process. I doubt well have any clues before 2050, but my bet is on natural order. either way, there's nothing real solid either way. pat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 01:34:06 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.211750.5262@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: >Well, I sure wouldn't want to ride a launcher which demonstrated excessive >Pogo and would happily see funds spent to correct the problem. Perhaps I would as well; but that's not what Henry and I are talking about. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 93 02:34 GMT From: THE ARTSTONE COLLECTIVE <0004651657@mcimail.com> Subject: Near Miss Asteroids (Q) I am interested in Asteroids that have passed close to the Earth. 1. When have these occured in modern times ? 2. Where might I find articles ? Any other information is also very welcome. Thanks Harry G. Osoff Science & Technology Editor Access News Network jukebox @ mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1993 00:48:21 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space Ken Hayashida writes: > space vehicle. One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands, > and is reusable. In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications > for this program. It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow I have to disagree with this. Shuttle was not built as a test vehicle, it was built as an OPERATIONAL launcher. The purpose of a test vehicle is to get the engineering data, or to demonstrate a technology. After that goal is achieved you stop flying it. The purpose of the Shuttle was (and is) to launch cargo and people into orbit. It was supposed to replace all other American launch systems. The main goal was to provide ROUTINE (that is frequent and reliable) and CHEAP acces to space. I remember that Shuttle was supposed to be up to 10times cheaper ($$/pound) than expendable launchers. These were the specs for the program and they have not been met. Shuttle is more expensive than any existing launch system. It does not fly frequently. It is reliable, but at the cost of frequent launch delays. Acess to space with the shuttle in nowwhere close to routine. > The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle. This automatically qualifies > it as an unparalleled engineering success. You could argue about its political It is an engineering achievment. But it is an operational nightmare and financial disaster. > success. But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever > flown. I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is Yes, it is advanced. But is the goal to build the most complicated machines possible, or to build machines that do the job and do it cheaper than other machines ?? > Pawel Moskalik replied to my original post > >?????? that is a matter of opinion. Compare today's launch schedule > >with the schedule given in, say, 1984. Compare them both with the schedule > >evisioned in 1978. > I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle > and the Soyuz project. Although, I may disagree with your method > of analysis. You probably will disagree with mine. 8-) I think that > the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and > technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?) Ability to meet schedules IS a technical merit for the launch system. The original plan was to have a 5 orbiter fleat, flying 60 missions a year. That means 12 missions a year per orbiter. Today NASA is able to fly 3-3.5 missions per year per orbiter. The impact of the shuttle program is indeed profound and I think it is rather adverse.. 1. the decision to proceed with shuttle caused cancelation of essentially all research in proplusion technology or launch technology in general. Today USA is flying rockets derived from the misiles of late fifies. 2. Even those launch systems have been nearly killed. 3. I agree with people on the net saying that the shuttle hurts the manned space program (or the space program in general) a) it is visibly wastefull, so it gives the the space program a bad name. People think that of it as a big drain of money and nothing else. That in turns results in lack of public support. b) it actually limits the acces to space, because flying is prohibitively expensive. NASA could fly 10, maybe 12 missions a year today. They do not, because they cannot afford more than 8. c) because of slipping schedule many payloads, including SCIENTIFIC payloads have been cancelled. Example: Spacelab/ASTRO was originally supposed to fly 6 missions.It will fly only 2. I think that building an EXPERIMENTAl shuttle in late seventies would have been a very good idea. But building and deploying the Space Shuttle as the operational vehicle for NASA was a major policy error. It has essentially cripled NASA and American spaca program for two decades and possibly longer. It eats all the resourses available. It is not only money, but also manpower. The number of technicians and engineers is not unlimited. If everybody is fixing the shuttle who is going to do the new things ? The financial resources are also limited. The biggest cost of any space operation is to get the payload to orbit. With the high cost of the shuttle flights very few projects can be funded. I agree with you, Ken, that critisizing shuttle nowadays does not make much sence. It is the only game in town today (for manned flight). Most importantly, it is what it is, you cannot fix it. You can only replace it with something else. And I think it should be replaced as soon as possible. I am not advocating scraping the shuttle in favour of DC-1 or anything else. That would be a foolish repetition of a shuttle history: comitting to a new technology before it is proven. In my opinion the proper course of action is as follows: the replacement should be developed as soon as possible. I think that DC-1 is the most promising choise. After the replacement is tested and PROVEN to be better than the Shuttle, only after that the shuttle is phased out. Wether such scenario is politicaly likely, I have no idea. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 22:38:56 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.100250.21092@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <1so3lo$2m6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > >is feasible for an alien. Boneless tentacles can exert considerable >pull but not push due the the lack of leverage imposed by the lack >of hinged bones. > Maybe they could be like my friend Assad Khan. Use their foreheads to bang on things :-) Seriously he did. He once caved in a windshield on a car with his forehead. | |Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist |gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing |forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the |creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for >pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large >active boneless creatures on land. > Maybe a lighter grav field, or hydrogen filled lifting sacs. Intelleigent floating octopus blimps. I bet they would never invent smoking though:-) This is speculation, almost anything goes. Didn't kurt vonnegut propose something like these in "venus on the half shell"? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 93 21:00:09 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: PLEASE give it a rest Pat sez; >>What i am doing is engaging >>in a little intellectual speculation, for which i lack enough >>data to do the full analysis. Fred responds; >No, what you're engaging in isn't "intellectual speculation", or you >wouldn't be flaming people for pointing out flaws in your plan. Fred, I know one person who considers 'pointing out flaws in the plan' as ample reason to flame the pointer ad nasuem, with the claim "He insulted me first". I see about equal flaming from both of you, BTW. If you two would stop getting into this so much, we could all learn about Pat's idea to see what he's actually getting at. When I have to page through 150 lines of flame to get to one or two lines of actual discussion, interspersed with flame, it makes me wonder if there isn't some actual discussion interspersed with the flame in the rest of the post, that is hidden behind all the witty repartee, and opinions about each other's sex lives :-) I may be missing someting. Nothing personal Fred, but your synopsis of Pat's idea doesn't really cut it, when it appears you have such strong feeling against it. If you didn't insult so much, I probably would trust your 'disinterested reasoning' more. It seems like a filibuster, the way you go on. Pat, maybe you could ignore Fred for a bit, and just post your idea, in the whole, now that Fred has given you some issues to consider, maybe prefacing it with a disclaimer as above? -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:10:28 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Space books from Krieger Newsgroups: sci.space In article loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: > Does anyone have any opinions on the quality of Krieger's books, and >which ones I should check out first? ... The only one on my shelf, at a fast glance, is Escobal's "Methods of Orbit Determination", which is considered the authoritative reference on the subject. A lot of good spaceflight technical books come from obscure small publishers, because the audience is small and production costs high. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 02:32:20 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: STS-57 inclination? Newsgroups: sci.space Ron Baalke writes: > > DAILY SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT > Tuesday, May 11, 1993 > > > George H. Diller > Kennedy Space Center > 407/867-2468 > > Vehicle: OV-105/Endeavour Mission number: STS-57 > Location: Pad 39-B Orbital altitude: 287 sm > Primary payload: Spacehab 1 EURECA 1-R Inclination: 57 degrees -----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^ > Launch timeframe: NET June 3 6:13 p.m. Landing site: KSC > Mission duration: 8 days Crew size: 6 I have seen elsewhere that inclination is 28 degrees. Which is correct? -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%) growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^ Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:25:24 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >>If DC-Y carries people into orbit, then it's gonna need that toilet... > >Are you sure? Not too many trucks, busses or cars have toilets... I'm not sure what things are like in the less orderly parts of what was once British North America :-), but up here the inter-city buses always have toilets. As do the trains and the airliners. (However, I do agree with Richard that if you're planning short missions, it may not be worth the trouble of providing anything more than a urine- disposal rig and a few baggies.) -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 570 ------------------------------