Date: Thu, 20 May 93 05:08:17 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #595 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 20 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 595 Today's Topics: AIAA - SGV to have DCX speaker in Pasadena Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Interesting DC-X cost anecdote Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere murder in space (3 msgs) Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) (2 msgs) Questions for KC-135 veterans (2 msgs) Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs) Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program) 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: 19 May 1993 17:11:44 GMT From: Vincent Pollmeier Subject: AIAA - SGV to have DCX speaker in Pasadena Newsgroups: jpl.general,sci.space,la.general The San Gabriel Valley Section of the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) will hold its bi-monthly dinner program at the Peppermill restaurant in Pasadena and the public is invited to attend. The program follows: Delta Clipper: Single Stage to Orbit Dr. William Gaubatz, Program Manager for SSTO Programs at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, CA will be speaking on the Delta Clipper program and on the current status of the DCX a third scale flight prototype currently undergoing testing. The Delta Clipper is being planned as a re-usable single stage launch vehicle which is being designed to make flight operations as simple as possible. McDonnell Douglas is using an innovative approach of design the launch vehicle to be maintained like more like a commercial airplane than the current Space Shuttle. Location: Peppermill Restaurant 795 East Walnut Ave Pasadena, CA (the Peppermill is located a block west of Lake Avenue and 2 blocks south of the 210 Freeway) Time: Social Hour: 6:00 - 7:00 Dinner and Program 7:00-8:30 Cost: $17.00 for AIAA members with reservations $20.00 for non-members and members without reservations $10.00 for full-time students (with ID) for more information and to make reservations contact AIAA Western Region Office at (800) 683 - 2422 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:55:55 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May18.203619.2011@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >Voicing my frustration at yet another redesign, I said: : >If we had just shut up and bent metal, : >we'd have a Space Station right now instead of the ninth redesign. >Allen W. Sherzer (aws@iti.org) wrote: >: Avation Week, November 12, 1990, page 26: >: "the original station deisign proved to be essentially broken from >: the start", one engineer in Houston said.... >Now THAT's a good response. Thanks. >points. I certainly don't fault informed, well-intentioned criticism >of the Space Station Freedom Program. I know you don't, but NASA senior managers DO. We saw time and time again from the 1990 redesign to the current WP02 mess that NASA managers prefer to hide problems than deal with them. >But just saying, "It's a mess, >and it needs to be cleaned up," doesn't help the Program. It's a first step. You can't solve a problem until you see it exists. Currently, NASA managers (and others) don't even see the mess. >Most of the troubles with the SSFP are managerial, not technical, For the current design, agreed. >yet the redesign efforts have all been aimed at technical solutions to >management problems. Also true. This means that the new design won't work either no matter what is selected. >: >If you don't like the manned space program or the way it's being run, >: >don't just sit there and complain. Get down here to Houston and put >: >your career where your mouth is. >: With all due respect, I believe I am doing far more to fix it up >: here in Michigan than I could in Houston. >I stick by my guns, here. Houston is where the action is. For now. You said yourself above that the problems where managerial, not technical. Those problems won't be solved in Houston. It is because I agree with you that I think the work can be done more effectively outside both Houston and NASA. 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." | +----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:47:38 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote Newsgroups: sci.space In article cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes: >> It [DC-X] cost SDIO $70M to build and it would cost the USAF: >> $320 million or four and a half times as much. >I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the cost difference could be >accounted for by the AF's requirement for superfluous 2167 documentation, Yep. >5 or 6 huge requirements and No, requirements where held constant. >design reviews, travel expenses flying personnel That would account for a lot. I have worked on $70M DoD programs. They would have quarterly meetings with up to 50 people flying in for a couple of days. Not to mention the huge amount of time wasted preparing for them by the engineers. SDIO had design reviews but only two or three SDIO people showed up. >Of course, this is my cynical opinion based on years of watching the >government procurement process try to cover up a lack of creativity and >innovation with reams of documentation. ;) Agreed. A big lesson from the DC-X is that it need not be this way. 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." | +----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 16:38:03 GMT From: "Charles J. Divine" Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article mnelson@eis.calstate.edu (Mark S. Nelson) writes: >Let's not forget that the liberal (or at least democrat) that every >conservative loves to hate, Jimmy Carter, was President during the >earliest years of the shuttle program. I don't really think he had much >of a problem with space exploration. But his VP Walter Mondale did lead an assault on NASA beginning in the late 60s. He not only proposed the elimination of all human spaceflight, he even introduced legislation to abolish NASA while a senator. With regard to the the shuttle, Mondale tried to stop the program and harassed it while VP. (One scheme of his had to be vetoed by Carter personally) Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general. His general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching -- not let's see what we can do. > >Also, to say that liberals don't like technology is the same as saying >that ALL physicists, chemists, engineers, etc, etc. are conservatives. As >a future physicist ( and present undergrad), I can attest to being a >technology loving liberal. May your tribe increase. Personally I'm protechnology and my political views are a mixture of liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism -- makes 'em all mad at me. > >P.S. The main reasons Reagan and Bush liked space was for military >purposes. Sure about that? I know quite a few conservatives who would argue that point. > Hmm...Just think how far we could have gone if we weren't >sinking all that money into weapons... Or exploding entitlement programs.... Or lawyers.... -- Chuck Divine ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:52:33 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere Newsgroups: sci.space baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >... There is some >risk involved with the aerobraking. The spacecraft will experience some >heating as it passes through the atmosphere, most of which will be >dissipated through the solar arrays and the back of the High Gain Antenna. >The aerobraking will not only help circularize the orbit, but valuable data >will also be collected on the aerobraking itself that can be used by >future missions. Other risks of aerobraking: 1) On the drag passes, the spacecraft will see a substantial flux of high-energy atomic-oxygen. There is some concern as to the effects of this on the spacecraft's surface (in particular, on the electrical interconnects between cells in the solar panels). 2) Aerodynamic torques during aerobraking passes will be considerable. The aerobraking attitude itself is aerodynamically stable, but if some (say, hardware) problem arises on the spacecraft during aerobraking, and the spacecraft tries to "call home" for help, it is considered doubtful that the spacecraft could maintain an Earth- pointed attitude over an orbit. 3) Venus' atmosphere is not as well-characterized as the Earth's. Particularly during the "end-game" where Magellan's orbit is rapidly approaching its circular "target", any unpredicted (and unpredictable) "blooms" in the atmosphere could cause serious problems. The long and the short of it: aerobraking is doable, but not without risk. Most folks I've talked to feel Magellan will be skating pretty close to the cliff, but probably far enough away to pull this off. The biggest concern is that this scheme leaves no margin for error -- any hardware failures during aerobraking, and Magellan's goose is probably cooked (figuratively and literally). Of course, Congress is getting bored with Magellan anyway (now let's see -- if a program fails, they whine because of the failure; if a program succeeds, they whine because they have to keep funding it... ;-) ). My understanding is that without aerobraking, Magellan's operations funding would have been cancelled anyway, and the bird would have been turned off. If Magellan doesn't make it through aerobraking in one piece, at least she'll go down with her boots on... Eric Seale seale@pogo.den.mmc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:05:28 GMT From: Martin Gemmel Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space Anselm Lingnau (lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de) writes: } Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an } abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value? No, because HAL is still on board. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 16:23:08 GMT From: Henry A Worth Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article 17252@ke4zv.uucp, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <1tb3f1$18a@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > > > > > >THe US now has Long Arm statutes, that cover crimes against > >Government personnell anywhere, anytime and against > >People on US vessels. I think it also inludes, crimes against > >US citizens in International areas, including AIrports. > > These statutes are also probably illegal. According to the Constitution, > treaties form superior law to legislation, and we are founding signatories > to the UN treaties which prohibit interference in the internal sovereign > affairs of nations. That means kidnaping Noreiga is likely a crime conducted > "under color of law". There are strict penalties in the US Code for crimes > conducted "under color of law". Note that it would be perfectly OK to > declare war on Panama and sieze Noreiga as a "spoil of war", but the raid > as conducted is probably illegal under the UN charter, and hence under > US law. The same goes for the doctor kidnaped by US agents in Mexico. Of > course the law is what the men with the most guns say it is, so the point > is moot. Actually, in the case of the Mexican doctor the Supreme Court ruled something along the lines that there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent the US from enforcing its laws anywhere in the world (at least that's how NPR reported it). Evidently the Court, at least the current one, doesn't think much of treaty obligations. --- Henry Worth No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 16:32:45 GMT From: Sean Barrett Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article mgemmel@cs.vu.nl (Martin Gemmel) writes: >Anselm Lingnau (lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de) writes: > >} Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an >} abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value? > >No, because HAL is still on board. Nonsense. Only a person (or a corporation) can own something. -- Sean Barrett ``KLONO'S tungsten TEETH and sean@pugsley.jpl.nasa.gov (fast) CURVING CARBALLOY CLAWS!!!'' sbar@genie.geis.com (reliable) PGP key by finger or from key servers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:40:05 GMT From: Mike Ross Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May17.073152.6142@hparc0.aus.hp.com> robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny) writes: ) )In a similar vein, would you agree that what Armstrong actually said )was: "That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!" ) ^^^ ^^^^ )Forever more it was reported as "big leap" - until many people ACTUALLY )REPORT HEARING it as "big" and not "damn". The (a) was more an intake )of breath than actually voiced. ) )Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't... ) Actually, I heard the first words as "... one GIANT leap for mankind." No, sir, it doesn't sound at all like "big". -mike -- ******************************** mike@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov ***** * Michael L. Ross/C33 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. * * Robotics Department | 2400 Nasa Rd. 1, Houston, TX 77062 * *(713)333-7094 voice,(713)333-7201 fax**********boring, eh?**** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:56:00 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May17.162614.25817@gtx.com> al@gtx.com (Alan J. Filipski) writes: >In article <1993May13.085714.20331@levels.unisa.edu.au> steven@spri.levels.unisa.edu.au writes: >Here is a transcript (my own) of Neil Armstrong's first words on the >surface of the Moon. Taken from the NASA short film, "For all mankind" >of the Apollo 11: > I'm gonna step off the LEM now. That's one small step for man, one > giant leap for mankind." "There seems to be no difficulty in >did he blow his line? did he really intend to say "one small step for *a* >man"? It would read much better so, since "man", without the article, >is usually considered synonomous to "mankind". Did armstrong ever >comment on this? I have heard (perhaps apocryphal) reports that after being asked this question for the umpteenth time, his somewhat testy response was on the order of, "Well, dammit, that's what I *meant* to say!" -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 16:13:35 GMT From: Henry A Worth Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17MAY199318160445@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR) writes: > >> computer equipment. I know the operational limit of 2.5 G downward > >> during operation, but I get long pauses out of computer company reps > >> when I ask them if their hardware (esp. hard drives) can take that. > >> > >> If anyone has experience with the KC-135, planning or designing hardware > >> for it, and would be willing to answer a few questions, please contact > >> me email. Many thanks. > >> > > > >You might also want to talk to some of the memory/chip manufacturers > >directly about the possibility of getting your hands on a flashram box. > >It'll give you storage that's just as invulnerable to G as the board it's > >mounted on. > > > >Of course, it's still a little experimental.... > > we used a PC-XT and read and wrote during the 2-g's period, It did fine. > same thing for a 486 clone. I also know some other people who used a > Mac II with hard dirve and they never seem to have a problem. For the drive, > if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the > side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the > hard disk.... > > hope this helps, > Email bounced... Anyway, this might trigger a more interesting discussion than the flame fests that usually plague this group. BTW, you might post your question to sci.aeronautics as well, comp.sys.realtime and comp.peripherals(.scsi) may also be useful sources of information. Wasn't that long ago that fighters were still using magnetic core and fixed head drums for g and rad tolerance, maybe they still do... ;-) You might check on drives intended for use in laptops. If the data is important, and if you only get one chance to acquire it, then think redundancy, i.e multiple drives (perhaps even mounted perpendicular to each other), even redundant controllers, multiple interconnected systems, or at least a cold standby system. You might also take a look at a tape drive as a redundant logging device. A lot more can go wrong than just drives -- just don't get carried away and blindly throw in redundancy, you may end up with a system so fragile that it ends less reliable than the basic system (analyze why you're adding the redundancy, what failure modes are being eliminated, and what failure modes may be introduced). Also, check all connectors, cables, and circuit boards for retention, support, and security. G-loads, shocks, and vibration can cause circuit board flex and shifting, connections to slip and make intermittent contact, and loose cables can damage components and loosen connectors (laptops may have some advantages compared to desktops). Consider the plane's nickname, it'd be a shame to lose your data just because someone deposited their lunch on your system, keyboard covers are cheap insurance. Include sequence numbers (timestamps probably won't tell you if a record is missing) and checksums or other error detection codes on each record written, if your disk does crash or an occasional sector is corrupt, you then have information that can be critical to being able to extract and validate much of your data using low-level disk diagnostic/recovery software. The sequence numbers and checksums in your records will allow you to eliminate duplicate and invalid records, to sort the data back into sequence and determine how much data is missing. Data from redundant devices can also be merged in and similarly filtered to fill in dropouts. Besides redundancy, you might write your software so that it has some fault tolerance, assume you're going to have some intermittent disk errors and design to recover and continue, and to minimize the effect of a lost record, e.g.: -Read after write(s) to verify, make sure the data is read from the platters and not from a buffer or cache. -On errors, write a duplicate record in the next block or at an alternate location. -Have a strategy for handling repeated errors, you may need to abandon the failing drive and rely on your redundant(s), but first, you might try skipping a large number of blocks to get away from a damaged area on the disk, switching to an alternate partition, or simply continue writing on the bad disk without error checking (enough data may be recoverable to fill in many of the dropouts that may occur on the redundant copy). -Design your buffering strategy so that the writes of a record to the redundant device occur at different times, transient environmental effects like shocks or EMI are then less likely to cause an unrecoverable loss of all copies of the record. -Buffer and sequence the records into blocks of output such that sequential pairs, or even triplets,..., of records are written to different and distant sectors. If a record is lost on all drives, it is then less likely that the unrecoverable loss will span multiple contiguous records. -Avoid dependencies between records, e.g., store absolute values not deltas, if a record is lost, you may not be able to resync and recover what follows. Don't store just a single copy of calibration or other data required to interpret the rest of data. -Use raw disk partitions for logging, you won't need to worry about inodes or FAT's getting corrupted and the OS doing you the favor of recycling your data before you get a chance to recover it. -Check all return codes, log exceptions, progress statistics, and summary statistics as well. When trying to reconstruct and validate data, every clue helps (helps with testing as well). --- Henry Worth No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 16:18:07 GMT From: Henry A Worth Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space In article 15908@mksol.dseg.ti.com, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > In <17MAY199318160445@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR) writes: > > >we used a PC-XT and read and wrote during the 2-g's period, It did fine. > >same thing for a 486 clone. I also know some other people who used a > >Mac II with hard dirve and they never seem to have a problem. For the drive, > >if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the > >side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the > >hard disk.... > > Hmm. I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might > make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways > force on the head. Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you > were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might > even be a problem for new drives. > The reformatting requirement was for the old, slow, drives that relied upon the open-loop positional (in)accuracy of stepper motors. The head assemblies and stepper motor were rather massive and subjected the motor to different loading patterns when repositioned, thus slightly changing the alignment and creating the requirement for low-level formatting. Wear, and perhaps environmental factors, could have similar effects, thus the need to reformat some notorious drives several times while breaking them in, and periodically thereafter, especially when using RLL controllers. Modern drives have active feedback and tracking mechanisms ("servo feedback") to maintain alignment at much higher densities. In some cases there is a dedicated platter with "servo tracks", and there are also methods of encoding the tracking signal along with the data. Low-level formatting requires special ciruits to rewrite the servo tracking signal. Some manufactures omit these circuits from the drive, which is the reason some disks can't be low-level formatted without specialized equipment. Heads are also much smaller these days, and should be less prone to flexing and torquing. The heads are also subjected to some significant impulses when seeking that probably make 0-3 g changes over comparative long periods of times look insignificant, at least if in the same plane as the platters. Disk drive specs often include a rating for survivable shocks, operating and non-operating, that would provide at least an indication of which drives might be more tolerant of short-term g-loading. Within limits, whatever they are, the main concerns for continuous g-loading are probably fatigue, bearing wear, and reductions in shock tolerance. --- Henry Worth No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:53:02 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May19.032650.15835@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes: >In article <1993May18.114229.16099@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>In <1993May18.075203.23042@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes: >> >> >>>clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >> >>> >>I expect Hollywood has exaggerated for dramatic effect. X-ray >>> >>vision from orbit is just not available. >>> >I think the imagery was supposed to be in the infrared. >> >>>Yes... the main "exaggeration" I thought of is that they were showing >>>it as LIVE VIDEO. I doubt very much if that is how the sats work. >> >>I think you can safely bet that there is real-time imagery capability >>available. >YES, but "real-time imaging" does not have to mean live 30 fps video. YES, but is it your contention that because it does not *have* to mean live 30 fps video that it *does not* mean 30 fps video? In other words, are you asserting as fact that no such system exists? [Note that I am *not* asserting the fact of the existence of such a system with a 30fps or similar frame rate. However, I can think of situations where such a system would be useful or desirable by people who could get allocation for funding of such a project and can think of no specific technological impossibilities involved in its creation. You may feel free to draw your own conclusions from there, however it seems a reasonably safe bet, unless you can come up with reasons why such a system would be impossible, that such a system exists.] -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:37:20 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space In <1993May18.144704.13197@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Jurkat) writes: >What makes you think that mirrors is all they'll use. Seems to me an >advertiser wouldn't want to waste the night and just stick in a nuclear >battery to power some way-cool visual eye-catching super-duper special >effects. Isn't that how most satelites are powered. Even solar batteries >could work for the el-cheepo advertisers. All right you can still use >the mirrors to focus your ad to different sections of the city or whatever. >The yuppies get an ad for "Volvos" and the ghetto can get an ad for "Spam". >Give these advertisers an "inch" for twighlight ads and soon the entire >sky will be filled with all kinds of bombarding annoying junk. Figure out how much power this barely visible reflective mirror is actually using. Then figure out how much power it would take to light the thing visibly instead of using reflected sunlight. It's going to take a lot more power than a 'nuclear battery' is going to be able to provide. You'd have to boost so much mass for your power plant that it simply isn't worth doing. Either that, or you have to build an SPS, at which point it is economically better to beam the power down to earth and sell it rather than beam it to an adsat. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 17:09:25 GMT From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines In a previous article, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) says: >In article <1t9b8j$l2t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx711@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes: >>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky >>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant >>impact on astronomical observations. I suspect there must be some kind >>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, >>people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would >>so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism. >> > >How clever of you. Nobody could really be upset at the idea of looking >up and seeing commericials in the sky or having all of life reduced to >an exchange of commodities and huckstering, so it must be a damn communist >plot to discredit our peculiar kind of freedom. Well, this "damn communist plot" is your idea, not mine. I certainly don't consider our kind of freedom to be "peculiar". And nowhere did I suggest that "nobody could really be upset"--obviously some people are _very_ upset. My point, which your posting so eloquently proves, is that people are getting upset over an issue that has _nothing_ to do with "light pollution" or interference with astronomical observations. It also has nothing to do with objects in space: Nobody's complaining about the prospect of looking up and seeing huge space stations or other structures in the sky. The _only_ difference between this structure and any other proposed space structure is that this one would contain a commercial message. It might say "Coke" instead of "NASA". It would show that space _can_ be commercially exploited, and can ultimately pay for itself, rather than having to be funded by taxpayers' money. I would _much_ prefer to see a structure in orbit that was funded by private enterprise with an advertisement, than to see a government-built structure that I and my children were forced to pay for. >Same goes for all pollution >controls: those smokestacks demonstrate strength, only luddite communist >technophobes could object to a nice visible plume that would demonstrate >the strength of western capitalism. On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and turned their beautiful country into a toilet. Billowing smokestacks are symbolic of their failure, not our success. Of course, you changed the subject from orbiting billboards to pollution controls and smokestacks, which is an example of the "underlying agenda coming to the surface" I spoke about in my posting. Jeff Cook bx711@cleveland.FreeNet.Edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:28:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May19.030333.15470@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: >...If nothing else, he and his Marshall team would have been very >involved in the design of the interface between the Redstone and the Mercury >capsule and certain aspects of the various abort modes. He and the USAF Atlas people would both have been involved in this sort of thing, but I doubt that questions like automation vs. piloting were decided with much input from them. >Once JFK called for a moon landing and Mercury shifted to Atlas, it also >seems certain that von Braun's efforts were completely refocussed to Saturn- >Apollo (as they called it at Marshall!) and that his input into the Mercury >orbital and Gemini programs was minimal. Interesting sidelight here: there was a point when von Braun just might have become head of the entire Apollo project... if he'd been willing to jump ship from the Army to NASA. He had the track record and the reputation and the personal charisma to (probably) pull it off, if he'd been in the right place at the right time. But he didn't want to abandon his team, and he felt considerable loyalty to the Army for its support over the years, so he stayed where he was and the vacuum was filled by others. -- 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 595 ------------------------------