Space Digest Tue, 27 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 927 Today's Topics: A Blast from the Past A ride to Mir for only $12 million? Buran and Aviation Week Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems) Catapult Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (2 msgs) DC-X DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs) Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Help, looking info on Grad Prog Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?) 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: 27 Jul 93 00:43:50 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: A Blast from the Past Newsgroups: sci.space The following article is apropos to some of the recent discussions on this list... ------------------------------ "Shuttles -- What Price Elegance?" [Robert C. Truax, Aeronautics/Astronautics, June 1970, pages 22-23.] After years of debate, the reusable orbital shuttle appears to be headed for full project status. It may be unseeming for the true believers, who have been arguing the case for reusability over the years, to begin haggling over the details so soon, but 'twas ever thus. My concern is that the approach selected will include many unnecessary frills that will run up the cost and extend the development time to the point where the program becomes another Dynasoar or MOL. All too many government projects go this route. American industry can perform technological prodigies, as we have witnessed in the Apollo and ballistic-missile programs. The national resolve must be firm, however, if success of such projects is to be assured. Long, difficult technical developments are seldom successful if the justification is not crystal clear; and, let's face it, the justification for the reusable orbital shuttle is *not* crystal clear. Although a favorable administrative decision appears at hand, the subject is still controversial among the experts. It is therefore vital to the success of the project that its costs and duration be minimized. The mood of the country will not support another engineering "tour de force". With the above considerations in mind, I would like to point out once more that, with the proper approach, development of a reusable orbital transport need not be particularly difficult, expensive or time-consuming ("Thousand Tons to Orbit", R. C. Truax, Astronautics, January 1963. "The Pressure-fed Liquid, Dark Horse of the Space Race," R. C. Truax, IAF Convention 1967.) It is necessary, however, to keep the primary objectives in the forefront and ruthlessly exclude features technically difficult but contributing only marginally to the central purpose. The features which I consider in the category of peripheral frills, but which present vast difficulties, include land touchdown and booster flyback. These features, unfortunately, are near and dear to many proponents of reusable vehicles. They make the "aero" part of the aerospace industry feel needed. They even have an appeal to the non-technically minded. But they make about as much sense as requiring airplanes to be able to land at railroad stations. For the moment assume that the reusable orbital transport requires at least two stages, and talk about the upper stage(s) first. We already have a reusable spacecraft, maybe two. With minor design changes, both the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft are reusable. There is no approach to returning a craft to Earth from orbit that is simpler, which costs less payload, or, I submit, which is either quicker or less costly to develop or to operate that the low-L/D, parachute-landed spacecraft using water touchdown. The present type of heat shield probably must be replaced each flight. An intrinsically reusable or a less-sophisticated expendable shield might prove more economic for repeated use. But I can see no valid argument for abandoning the essentially ballistic re-entry with parachute touchdown in water. Let us examine what we pay for winged or even lifting-body re-entry, and what we reeive in exchange. In the re-entry phase, we trade off high heating rates and receive longer heating times and *greater* total heat-input. The net effect is loss of payload. We gain lower re-entry accelerations. If we have as our chief aim shuttling little old ladies (or possibly a president with a weak heart) to and from Earth orbit, I would agree that lower "G" is a significant advantage. As long as the crew and passengers are even moderately healthy individuals, at least one step removed from the wheelchair, the reduced acceleration cannot be [presented] as a significant advantage. The second "advantage" touted for the high L/D re-entry is "footprint." A large footprint carries the capability for a wider selection of landing point for a given deorbiting condition. However, any landing point within the maximum latitude excursion of the orbiting craft can also be selected by waiting a bit longer and deorbiting at the proper time. The Apollo spacecraft has built into it all of the lift capability required to compensate for deorbiting errors and to permit reasonably short orbital "holding times." How much are we willing to pay for a minor gain in scheduling convenience? Expansion of landing opportunities in emergencies cannot be cited as an advantage of high-lift re-entry. It may be a necessary adjunct, but a lifting-body craft probably cannot be safely ditched in the ocean, nor can it be landed on rought terrain. The ballistic vehicle with aprachute can do both, and in substantially any weather. Its touchdown on land may damage the craft some, but the probability for survival of the occupants is very high. The crew of a winged re-entry vehicle, on the other hand, coming in for an emergency landing might learn to their grief that three quarters of the surface of the Earth is water! Use of special lifting bodies cannot be justified on the basis of touchdown accuracy. Only ultra-conservatism and concern for our astronauts' safety prevents us from recovering one mile off Cocoa Beach. Nor is it necessary to have half the U.S. Navy standing by. A helicopter or pickup boat could have the spacecraft and crew back at the launch site within minutes. Does it matter whether they ride in a boat or on wheels? As a matter of fact, barring the construction of expensive new runways and other facilities, the land-landing spacecraft will wind up further from its launch site than one the lands on water! Most of these results about the spacecraft (i.e., the payload module) apply also to the upper propulsive stage. Minimizing the exposed area generally minimizes the problem of heat protection. The arguments for winged re-entry are even less valid for the ascent propulsion stage unless it is permanently attached to the payload module or separately manned. The penalties for doing the latter are serious. Perhaps the most powerful argument for separating the two modules is that one does not need to return a cargo enclosure. Indeed, it can be quickly shown that it is uneconomical to do so. Mixed passenger and cargo flights should be the exception, rather than the rule. Propellants, in particular, should be transported to orbit in a throwaway container. We should never try to maximize the amount of empty container that must be brought back through the "thermal thicket." If, indeed, it proves economical to return expended upper stages, they should be left to make the journey alone -- started on their way, perhaps, by a space "switch engine" which gives them proper orientation and impulse, and then returns to the space station. I have saved my comments on the first stage until last because it is here I feel we can make our greatest mistake. A winged, flyback booster could be a money sponge of unparalleled capacity. It is, unfortunately, the kind of technological challenge that engineers cherish and which they may be expected to recommend with unstinted enthusiasm. It is also the avenue to participation and profit by an airplane-oriented industry. Even if the many-fold problems we create by such a requirement can indeed be solved by vast injections of cash, the payoff, I am convinced, is completely trivial. Let us examine the two features separately. Take flyback first. Why fly? Well, flying saves time -- but it also costs money, particularly if we are trying to fly back a huge booster, for we have to take its transport plane into space with us first. Yet that is essentially what we propose to do. I will not belabor the point that making a space booster that is also a hypersonic airplane is a formidable problem. Even the staunchest proponents admit that. Instead, let us see what would be gained if we indeed had such a beast. First, we would gain time. The return from a few hundred miles down range would be in a matter of minutes. Return by tug or retrieval vessel would require perhaps 24 hr. When launch intervals approach this figure, the saving in time would permit a reduction in vehicle inventory. However, since the cost ratio between simple ballistic and flyback booster must be at least 10 to 1, the breakeven launch interval would be several per day. I am sure that such high utilization rates go far beyond the lifetime of this first-generation reusable booster. The savings in time, then, is not a valid argument for flyback. How about land touchdown? Like an airplane, I mean. The usual argument is that airplane turnaround costs are a few thousand dollars at most (i.e., Boeing 707 in commercial service) whereas expendable ballistic boosters cost millions just to check out and launch. Certainly (the argument goes) a booster that has splashed in salt water and been towed hundreds of miles would have to be completely rebuilt at heaven knows what cost! A reusable booster that looks like an airplane, flies like an airplane, and, above all, lands like an airplane will probably have turnaround costs approaching that of an airplane. I say nonsense! This opinion simply reflects wishful thinking and "gut feel". So is the pessimistic appraisal of the effect of water landing on refurbishment cost. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the structural fraction of a winged flyback booster is about on a par with a scaled-up Aerobee. A simple, rugged pressure-fed booster would perform as well as the ultra-complex flyback VTOHL (or HTOHL). The pressure-fed booster could be recovered by means of a relatively small inflatable drag-device. Studies have shown that water-entry velocities up to several hundred feet per second could be sustained without damage. Naturally, a water-landing booster must be designed to exclude sea water from any electronics or delicate machinery; but the unmanned, simple system I have suggested before involves precious little such claptrap. The problems are not essentially different from those encountered in excluding sea water from ships, submarines or seaplanes, all of which operate immersed in the ocean for much longer periods than a reusable booster. Quite similar rockets (liquid JATO of WW II) have been dropped in the ocean and reused many times without *any* refurbishment, other than reservicing with propellants. An experiment with a modified Aerobee (Seabee) showed a refurbishment factor of only 7% on the first try! No, far from having a higher turnaround cost than the winged flyback booster, the pressure-fed rocket, utilizing a ballistic path, pure drag retardation, and vertical, water touchdown with tug return would have a much lower turnaround cost. It would, for the simple reason that there is so much less to refurbish! There is only one advantage to the horizontal-landing flyback booster that I would freely acknowledge. The late, redoubtable Nick Golovin termed water landing "inelegant." I would agree, but how much are we willing to pay for elegance? ------------------------------ Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu "Absolute stupidity of the worst sort" -- Freeman Dyson commenting on the space shuttle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:05:48 GMT From: Innocent Bystander Subject: A ride to Mir for only $12 million? Newsgroups: sci.space c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) Pontificated: >> Only one millionaire has attempted this, so far as we know, and he >> wasn't willing to pay the full price, so he didn't fly. (I'm assuming >> John Denver is a millionaire-- forgive me if this isn't true, John.) > >I might be wrong but I recall that John Denver offered around US$40 >million to fly to the Mir. Is it right? Since he did not fly, apparently >the Russians were asking more than that. I am not aware of how much >the Japaneses paid to fly their journalist so I would like to know if >there is anyone in the Net that have the right figures. > As I heard it, it wasn't the $ that stopped Mr. Denver, it was either the one-year of required cosmonaut training and/or the requirement that he learn fluent Russian. /~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ | "You know how people are. They only recognize greatness | | when some authority confirms it." | | -Bill Watterson in "Calvin and Hobbes" | ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 22:46:05 GMT From: Claudio Egalon Subject: Buran and Aviation Week Newsgroups: sci.space > Someone once pointed out that when Aviation Week & ST printed the first > reasonably accurate drawings of both the Energia and Buran, they included > the name Buran on the drawing I remember this incident. It was a letter from a reader that was published in AW&ST. In the same page of the letter, there was a photo of Buran which the reader was refering to. As far as I remember, AW&ST did not comment about this reader's letter. Claudio Oliveira Egalon C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:03:39 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul26.151445.29252@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes: >In article <1993Jul23.103403.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > >Here's the way its reported in Russia. It still does not point out the >judgement of all parties involoved, but its a good first look. Thank >the JPRS-FBIS folks for the colorful translations.... > What's JPRS-FBIS for our general edification -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 93 20:58:14 GMT From: Bob Kirkpatrick Subject: Catapult Newsgroups: sci.space cs60a-bn@danube.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Darth Vader) writes: > I was wondering if anyone out there ever thought about what it would take to > build a Heinlein style catapult. What would it cost? Would any private > corporation be able to fund such a project? Is it technologically possible > at the present? Just speculating absently... Technologically, I think it is possible. The technology is similar to that used in particle accellerators and some monorails. Of course, this would be one whale of a train. :-) The cost of building it would be pretty impressive. Not only are there the materials needed, but the property on both the flatlands and the incline. The biggest hurdle I see (relatively speaking) would be firing it. The pow- er needed to charge it would be immense. As I sit here considering it from my layman's position, all I can think of is Doc Brown tearing his hair in Back to the Future yelling "One point twenty-one gigawatts!" Which, for all I know, might just be the quiescent current for a magnetic catapult. (!) -- Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA I love my country. I'm just not fond of it's people and I hate the government. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:17:02 GMT From: Cameron Randale Bass Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space In article <26JUL199314161671@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: >In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs>, 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes... >> >>For those who still are researching cold fusion, the entire question >>is still about RATE. The faster you can make the fusions occur, >>the more power you can generate. So, the size of the cell and the >>amount of power it can generate will not be determined until someone >>can give us some reproducable experiments that measure the rate of >>cold fusion. > >I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate." That answer seems >to hide a more fundamental truth. I presume that the rate of >cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at >room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope >to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop. I don't remember the rates of any other reaction pathway in Pd-D, except Pd-D itself. And that was 1 in 10^4000. So you wouldn't even expect to see it in an ensemble of a ten *universes* like our own. dale bass ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:13:46 GMT From: Cameron Randale Bass Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs> 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes: > > >Firstly, we know that cold fusion does occur-whether it is in the >Palladium/heavy water cells aka Pons and Fleischmen or whether >it is muon-induced, the question is one of rate. Actually, if the rate calculated for Pd-D processes is 1 in 10^4000, I'd say that it was *not* actually occurring. dale bass ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 93 15:44:23 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <22pqlf$j3j@usenet.rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: In article <8s3y7B3w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> voss@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (stephen voss) writes: >This is a public (repond with a post) question >3) Why should we be funding space programs at all when we have (fill in >your favorite social cause) here at home Hmm, you could take some people's answers and say "My favorite social cause is jobs" and justify the space program taht way. Oh bother. I've been thinking on this a little... Now, the essential problem here is not so much the money, but the manpower and resources needed to deal with , the argument being that the diverts needed resources away from worthier programs. Now, if people are truly committed to the notion that is _that_ big a problem, there are far more effective ways of mobilising the needed resources, personally I would recommend shutting down all TV and divert the freed "free time" to tackling the social problems. This has the advantage of being a scalable solution, if they truly feel has that high a priority, simply tell your friends to watch _no_ television and dedicate the resources freed until the problem is solved... ;-) * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * * steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * * Some people think they're really clever * * Smash your head against the wall Specials, 1979 * ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 23:13:20 GMT From: Doug Mouser Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In article <231b5s$gj8@voyager.gem.valpo.edu>, mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) wrote: > > Doug Mouser (mouser1@llnl.gov) wrote: > : Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable > : space > : station and a maned mars mission. Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting > : and > : politics. > > : Doug > > : PS. The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40 > : billion! > > ..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not > compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's > important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget > is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first > A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical > research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think > that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects, > which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little > (more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt > it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed.. > > Mike > -- You bet I blame NASA. Of course not every one at NASA is to blame, some even support the idea. As for 40Bil, NASA wanted to spend about 400 billion over 25 years to send men to mars. The 40 billion LLNL had in mind would have been for one space station, one moon base, one fuel transfer vel. and the mars ship. Now NASA wants to spend 12 - 15Bil just to start FRED, for just the inflatable space station "it was call earth station" would have been under 5Bil in 1989 dollars. I'll look up that real dollar amounts tonight. And your right, NASA does some great work. HUD does some great work too, but like HUD, NASA does mismanage our (MY) money. IMHO Why is NASA spending so much money on FRED when there are other less exspensive alternatives? Is the design of FRED technicaly superior in any why to LLNL's earth station? I do not work for L. Wood or in any way with the dept. that purposed LLNL's space plans. My job is not on the line here but my tax money is. Doug ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 19:57:38 -0400 From: Pat Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In article <230jpv$enm@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: |Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote: | |: What unrealistic demand beliefs are these? I would seriously suggest |: you study a little economics, then come back. | |I've seen posts pointing towards upwards of 200 flights a year.. no |offense but I DO doubt that level of payloads is available unless |they plan on lofting more of those wonderful space billboards people |are talking about.. I STILL don't see you posting any numbers.. just |rebuttals.. | Alan posts the basic numbers. But MDA people i spoke to, have a plan based upon locking up 85% of the Medium Launch capacity in the US within two years of product release. Now as for 200 launches per year, part of that is posited on opening new markets. I believe Overnight express to anywhere and executive transport will create the market for 200 launches/year. The idea is as launches increase, costs devrease, and demand increases. Do you have a basic problem with this? It's called supply and demand. |: >(I know NASA's working VERY hard to learn from it's mistakes and improve |: >it's performance) |: > | |: This is a seriously top-down culture change. it's not well appreciated |: by th emiddle ranks. | |Actually, I know a number of people in the middle AND lower ranks who are |quite happy that it's finally being worked on.. and those that don't |like it can get outta the way.. | Well, Considering goldin spent the first year in his job fighting with his subordinates about this in particular, and had to directly slam a number of people to stop the campaign to remove him from his job this year, i wouldn't exactly say it's appreciated by the middle ranks. Try reading through the back issues of space news. |: > |: >I'd really like to see the rational behind the payload cost figures. I'd be |: >happy to analyze em out myself if somebody would be kind enough to post |: >them so I can see if my theories are sound.. again, the initial point | |: Well, I am sure,, you can work with Mr Hayashida on his spread sheet. | |Again, I'm asking for input, not silly comments.. and unless you have |some data to share, why act so "well informed"? | Ken Hayashida, keeps posting about his great vaunted spreadsheets and analytical skills. I am quite seriously directing you to someone who has been collecting the data, or at least had it mailed to him. | |: Shuttle was not man-rated when it flew. Man rated systems become man- |: rated by a series of proof launches. The STS did not do this. | |The shuttle had a number of systems onboards to allow a man-rating.. |these systems cost money, and weight.. if we stripped ALL of the crew |systems outta the orbiter, and flew it like the Russians flew theirs, |we'd probably save lots of money and fly more frequently.. but there's |very little "excitement" that can be sustained without manned lauches, |so personally I don't like that idea much.. | So basically you are saying that without gluing some guy to a roman candle no-one will pay for the launch. I guess that's why people are fighting to see the DC-X test flights. You are still dodging the basic issue though. The Redstone, Atlas, Titan and Saturn were all proof launched through 3? launches before men were placed in the capsules. STS flew without any proof testing. PS lots of people watched the saturn test launches. |: > |: >They DO add reliability.. most of the major improvements or redesigns |: >done on the shuttle have added reliability or survivability to |: >the vehicle.. I'd MUCH rather fly on today's shuttle than the one |: >flown ten years ago.. | | |Actually, I'm talking about thing like the comm system, the electrical |system, the hydraulics, the ECLSS, etc... there have been numerous |updates and upgrades into the shuttle over the years which make it |more reliable, and versitle. The "crew escape pole" is such a minor |"upgrade" it's hardly worth arguing about.. it's only useful in a very |limited range of situations, but I for one am still glad it's there.. The problems of the shuttle though are still severe. There is no way to fix the basic structural and design problems of the shuttle. What youa re talking about is sort of like commenting on how great the blankets are in a boat that has lost power and is 2 miles off the reef. Please tell me what has been done to handle a Failure in the SSMEs or turbo-pumps. Or what can be done in an orbit while the SRBs are burning. ANy system without useful abort modes at all times is doomed for trouble. there are still dozens of 1-R failure modes. |The shuttle may be a "kludge" in your opinion, but if so, it's the |worlds best, most sophisticated and versitle kludge. There are plenty Try expensive, underperforming and attention diverting kludge flying. |of additional upgrades NASA's LOVE to do to the shuttle to improve |it's efficiency and safety even now, but again, the money is not |available so they have to wait.. | You want to list some of them? |These still all lead back to the central points.. that shuttle is |a VALUABLE resource that should be used until a replacement is available.. Oh it is valuable, but it's expensive. far too expensive. My theory is the shuttle will get listed with the great western, the R-101 and the spruce goose as engineering boondoggles (oh i forgot the hindenberg too). |(and DC still isn't flying, or even built.. is it?) AND the DC is |being sold as "God's/MD's gift to space flight" with it's claims of |$20/pound and extreem safety not yet proven.. why should we NOT be |sceptical? I am sure that the Air-ship community was saying the same things about the Ford Tri-motor and lockheed Vega at that time. pat -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:17:08 -0400 From: Pat Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In article <231b5s$gj8@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: >Doug Mouser (mouser1@llnl.gov) wrote: |: Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable | |: PS. The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40 |: billion! | |..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not |compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's It's Half of NASA's budget for 7 years. Do you have a problem? Apollo ate 80% of NASA's budget for 10 years. The Second S is for Space. |important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget |is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first |A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical |research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think Michael shows his true innocence. Naive boy. I hope you can learn. Aero research is under 1 billion/ year. 1/14th of the budget NASA gets. Goldin's biggest contribution last year was getting Aero research kicked up to 1 billion this FY. And it was against the will of every major director at NASA. >that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects, No, but NASA should be focused on viable projects. every project they proposed in the 80's cost orders of magnitude more then their past projects in the 60's. >which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little >(more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt >it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed.. > Read the trade press. pat -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:21:51 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space I just received confirmation on the HASC R&T Subcommittee vote. They authorized $80M and directed the program be moved to ARPA. As I said, this is everything we asked for. Those of you who wrote or called, pat yourselves on the back. You did a good job! The next step legislatively is still being worked on. However, now is the time to send letters and phone calls to Schroeder and any other HASC member you wrote to thanking them. This is an important step since very few people ever do it. we will need her support in the future and thanking her now makes it much easier. Besides, she deserves it. 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." | +----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 23:49:54 GMT From: Gregg Murphy Subject: Help, looking info on Grad Prog Newsgroups: sci.space I've been trying to get some information, but since I've been out of school, it is difficult to find where quality graduate programs are. I am looking for a Masters Program in Aerospace. If anyone knows of a quality prog. I would enjoy hearing from you via E-Mail Thanks, Gregg Murphy, gmurphy@nicnext.life.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:09:22 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Just about all the chlorine in an aluminum/AP/polymer solid rocket >>comes out as hydrogen chloride. > >Of course, the difference is a little academic, since HCl is just about as >much of a problem to breathe as Cl itself... Give HCl the slightest trace >of water and it turns into hydrochloric acid. Tha'ts what i get for posting loosely. I was thinking about the chlorides released, converting to Acid Rain. The nice thing about LOX/LH2, is it's a clean green Flying Machine. (BTW the DC-X Promo tapes pound this point home.) I suspect Lox/RP-1 isn't bad as an exhaust either. But i've seen a lot of the hoop jumping on the Stennis environmental problems. I don't know why NASA didn't just tell Thiokol to rent out it's Test stands, or never get a contract from NASA again. pat -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 927 ------------------------------