Space Digest Wed, 28 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 929 Today's Topics: Catapult Cold Fusion Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (3 msgs) DC-X Found your own dark-sky nation? (3 msgs) Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed (2 msgs) Hackers Ethic in Space! Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions) Shuttle Computers/Software: Redundancy! Crosschecking! Soviet manned spacecraft accidents [was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems] SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993 Test Stands at MSFC 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: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:04:08 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Catapult Newsgroups: sci.space bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes: >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 calculations for an E-M catapult are easy. From memory the energy needed to send 1 tonne into escape from the surface of the Earth (neglecting air resistance! actually about 10% for a long thin thing like a utlity pole) is 22 MW-Hrs. For a launcher 3 kms long (memory!) that needs dischargin in about 3.5 seconds. Working backwords we need 2.5 million automobile batteries spread out along the track. (Fort Elgin uses 50,000 batteries to test rail guns). No Sweat. I repeat I am quoting from memory so my figures are very approx. -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3* Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 93 17:59:07 GMT From: Andreas Schulz OT133 Subject: Cold Fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space As my old physics professor used to say : Superconductivity at room temperature is surely possible... .. just make the room cool enough. (The transfer to cold fusion is left as an excercise to the reader) :-))) sorry, couldn't resist (and didn't want to post boring 'ignore this one's') Andreas ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 1993 07:54:49 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space If Henry corrects Henry, Who'se wrong? You are. Henry is always right, it's your perception that's wrong.:-) -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 13:56:55 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India > Realize, that even though your friends work at lewis, > the US military Industrial complex has a strong belief that > only Americans have the grace from god to ever come up with an idea. > > Probably closer to the truth in another way. I once wrote a letter to Foreign Affairs (which was not printed: they stopped printing letters just about the time they rcvd mine) on the MTCR. My thesis is that whereas one can make the argument that most nations would be better off without NBC weaponry, this argument breaks down entirely on rockets. Rockets are the entry into space and one of the most important economic realms of the next century. Any government that allows the USA to bully it out of that market is cutting it's people out of the future. I simply don't see how any nation (or preferably private entities within it) can allow this to happen. It would be like joining an ATCR (hint: aircraft) in 1910. Will the existance of 120 indigenous spacefaring nations mean there is a threat to the USA? Certainly. Just as the existance of 120 airfaring nations means there is a threat to the US. The appropriate means of handling the threat is what the BMDO exists for. It is part and parcel of the current american "safety madness" as seen in such things as the destruction of General Aviation; the death of innovation in birth control; the massive medical costs for malpractice defensive medicine; and on and on. This mindset acts out its neurosis by defending against minor threat within a potential great good by outlawing the great good. I don't give the MTCR a Guinness' on a desert island full of Irishmen's chance of lasting much into the 21st century. It is inherently economically assinine. I'm quite happy to see India thumb it's nose at the US policy dweebs. I hopes lots more countries take up the hobby. -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 12:52:34 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space mmord@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >to kick in some unpredicted failure mode. Keep in mind that the >Minuteman solids are probably the oldest still kicking around in >the world. When will they "age-out?" How will they age-out? >Bret I thought that the Polaris motors for the British Nuclear Submarines had that dubious honour. They have caused real problems, even it is roumoured having to de-retire the guys who built them to check and repair them. -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3* Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 93 12:26:09 GMT From: jeff findley Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <230l9j$enm@voyager.gem.valpo.edu>, mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: |> I'd assume though |> that the DC will be capable of flying sideways with minimal difficulty.. |> (just place the RCS jets in the right places along the body of the ship |> and it should work out well.. though I'd note I'm curious about how.. |> according to what I've heard, the DC "upper body" will be used as a |> heat shield for reentry.. like the shuttle's underside.. but the shuttle |> has no "jet ports" here to worry about.. will the DC have these |> holes but use retractable "doors" to cover them for reentry? If so, that |> is a fairly "critical" system, considering you will need a door for every |> cluster of jets, and each door is a liability in cases of failure..) How many of these "critical doors" are on the bottom of the Shuttle? Three to eight? I know they have doors over the rather large LH2 and LOX connections and probabally the ET attach points as well. Landing gear also needs these "critical doors". Seems like we've been there and done that since the days of the X-15 (way before I was even born). Perhaps MD has already done the research to put RCS jets on the outside without "critical doors", since the design is roughly based on maneuverable reentry vehicle (i.e. nuclear warhead) technology. Just how maneuverable these things are is a mystery to me. :-) Jeff -- __ __ __ __ /-------------------------------------------+-----------\ / \ | \ | \ / \ |"Have you noticed the way people's | The above | \__ | | |__/ | | intelligence capabilities decline sharply | opinions | \ | | | \ | | the minute they start waving guns around?"| are mine, | \__/ |__/ | \ \__/ |Dr. Who (Tom Baker in "The Horns of Nimon")| not SDRC. | jeff.findley@sdrc.com \-------------------------------------------+-----------/ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 93 20:19:06 GMT From: Tom Glinos Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology In article <1993Jul25.155857.22434@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >Uhhh. The original post was meant to be tongue in cheek, now you're >getting serious. I don't think that most astronomers would really >want a sea level observatory if they had a choice. The seeing would >be poor too much of the time. It's not so bad. I understand people at the last Winter Star Party in Florida were looking at objects at 3000x -- ================= "Conquest is easy, control is not" | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics [Star Trek TOS] | tg@utstat.toronto.edu USL forgot this simple history lesson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 11:06:02 GMT From: Andy Clews Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote: : Uhhh. The original post was meant to be tongue in cheek, now you're : getting serious. I don't think that most astronomers would really : want a sea level observatory if they had a choice. The seeing would : be poor too much of the time. Especially as your 'scope would be underwater at high tide :-) -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, England JANET: andy@uk.ac.sussex.syma OTHER NETWORKS: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:12:34 GMT From: Frances Teagle Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology The deep, deep dark of an unlit Transylvanian village (Arkos, Brasov county) is a revelation. So glad I had my binoculars with me. ____ ____ /__ / __ __ __ / __ / / /__/ __ / / / / /__/ / o / /__ /__/ /__/ / /__ (ft@nessie.mcc.ac.uk) _/ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 1993 07:55:54 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space ALan Please post the List of members for the HASC. I don't keep them, and if i am going to send out thank you bullets, it would help. -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:18:50 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <23354a$gf2@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > Please post the List of members for the HASC. I don't keep >them, and if i am going to send out thank you bullets, it would help. Here you go: House Armed Services Committee - Research and Technology Subcommittee Name Address Phone FAX (AC 202) (AC 202) Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) 2208 RH 20515 225-4431 225-5842 Bob Stump (R-AZ) 211 CH 20515 225-4576 225-6328 Dave McCurdy (D-OK) 2344 RH 20515 225-6165 225-9746 Jane Harman (D-CA) 225-8220 Roscoe bartlett (R-MD) 225-2721 225-2193 Don Johnson (D-GA) 225-4101 Glen Browder (D-AL) 1630 LH 20515 225-3261 225-9020 Earl Hutto (D-FL) 2435 RH 20515 225-4136 225-5785 George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) 124 CH 20515 225-3826 225-0776 Martin Lancaster (D-NC) 225-3415 225-0666 James H. Bilbray (D-NV) 225-5965 225-8808 Chet Edwards (D-TX) 225-6105 225-0350 Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA) 133 CH 20515 225-5672 225-0235 John R. Kasich (R-OH) 1131 LH 20515 225-5355 James V. Hansen (R-UT) 2466 RH 20515 225-0453 225-5857 Frank Tejeda (D-TX) 225-1640 225-1641 Martin Meehan (D-MA) 225-3411 Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) 225-0855 225-9497 Steve Buyer (R-IN) 225-5037 225-2267 Peter Torkildsen (R-MA) 225-8020 225-8037 James Talent (R-MO) 225-2561 225-2563 Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA) 2136 RH 20515 225-2661 225-9817 Robert K. Dornan (R-CA) 2402 CH 20515 225-2965 225-2075 Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN) 2406 RH 20515 225-3271 225-6974 John Tanner (D-TN) 225-4714 225-1765 Pete Geren (D-TX) 225-5071 225-2786 -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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." | +----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 1993 08:33:00 GMT From: Philip Brown Subject: Hackers Ethic in Space! Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jul26.212804.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Taking the Hackers Ethic into space, It cna be an interesting way to get >around the stuffed shirt, suit attitudes of some in certain organizations.. >... >Might add: > >7. Complex is just bad source code. Make it simpler. NOOTTTT! :-) This goes against the "you can make art on a computer" clause! But you should definitely make it concise, minimal, and clean. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Tea: a Noxious brew of various oriental leaves, containing toxic acids. Personally, I rather like it." (paraprhased from Dr. Who: Peter Davidson) philb@cats.ucsc.edu philb@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:00:12 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions) SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act-- (1) the term "outer space" means those portions of the universe more than 70,000 meters above earth"s mean sea level, including but not limited to empty space itself and the surfaces and interiors of celestial bodies; (2) the term "unique scientific opportunity" means any opportunity to engage in a space mission or experiment which will recur less often than once every five years due to the constraints of celestial mechanics or other physical laws; (3) the terms "unacceptable risk" or "unacceptable risk of loss of a unique scientific opportunity" mean a demonstrated record of loss in operation more than twice as great as that established by the space shuttle or other commonly used and generally accepted means of space transportation designed for the intended purpose; (4) the term "commercial provider" means any person providing space related goods or services, such as space transportation services, as a for profit business endeavor; (5) the term "space goods" means any item, product or manufacture which assists in carrying out space services, including but not limited to space transportation vehicles, payloads, space vehicles, space probes, space stations, and associated ground support equipment; (6) the term "space services" means activities carried out within outer space or on celestial bodies, or activities carried out on Earth to support, enable or assist such activities contemporaneously or at a future time, including but not limited to the transportation of persons or payloads to, from or between points in space, operation of mission control, mission planning, deep space communication, earth observation or conduct of experiments at a space station; (7) the term "space goods and services" means space goods, and space services, as defined above. (8) the term "space transportation services" means transportation of payloads or people from earth to outer space, from point to point within outer space, including points on other celestial bodies, or from outer space to Earth, or on flights on suborbital rockets; and the preparation of a space transportation vehicle and its payloads or passengers for space transport and the conduct of transporting a payload or pasenger to, from, or within outer space; (9) the terms "launch vehicle" or "space transportation vehicle" mean any vehicle constructed for the purpose of operating in, or transporting a payload or passenger to, from, or between points in outer space (e. g. a sounding rocket), and includes any component of such vehicle not specifically designed or adapted for the payload, i. e. a vehicle intended to provide space transportation services; (10) the term "payload" means anyone or anything that a person undertakes to transport to, from, or within outer space, and implicitly includes passengers unless otherwise stated, but does not include a space transportation vehicle except for any components which are specifically designed or adapted for that payload; (11) the term "space infrastructure" means all facilities, capital equipment, real property and associated material of high cost and lasting value used to perform space related activities; (12) the term "space launch and launch support facilities" means space infrastructure used -- (A) to prepare space transportation vehicles and their payloads for space transport; or (B) to launch such vehicles; (13) the term "space-related activities" includes research, applied research, development, design, manufacturing, processing, services, maintenance, support, and other activities associated with space goods and services; (14) the term "commercial space station" means any habitable volume owned and operated by a commercial provider; (15) the term "space manufacturing" means any activity carried out in space which adds value to an item or material through processes or operations performed on it in outer space; (16) the term "space resource utilization" means the production of useful materials or products from materials naturally available in outer space; (17) the term "United States person" means-- (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; (B) any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other entity organized or existing under the laws of the United States or any State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and (C) any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other entity which is organized or exists under the laws of a foreign nation, if the controlling interest (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation by regulation) in such entity is held by any combination of individuals or entities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection; or (D) a foreign company or its subsidiary and the Secretary finds that-- (i) such company or subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through-- (I) investments in the United States in long-term research, applied research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies); and (II) significant contributions to employment in the United States; and (ii) the country or countries in which such foreigh company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) to participate in government sponsored research similar to that authorized under this Act; (III) providing no barriers to companies described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) with respect to local investment opportunities that are not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and (IV) providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph (A) and (B); and (18) the term "antitrust laws" has the meaning given it in section 1(a) of the Clayton Act (15 USC 12(a)), except that such term includes sections 2 through 6 of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (15 USC 4301 through 4305), and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commisssion Act to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition; (19) the terms "research" or "basic research" mean activities directed at discovering basic new knowledge and fundamental natural laws by careful study of a specific subject without regard to production of specific items or fulfilment of specific mission objectives. Research is a long term process of learning and discovery with focus on a general scientific area rather than a specific technical result. In general, research is directed at the discovery of natural laws and other knowledge which is difficult to protect as a trade secret, and which (if innovative) would not be patentable under existing law. Research is typically carried out by one to five persons over a period of several years. Applied research, exploratory development, and development are activities related to creating innovations which in general adhere to the criteria for patentability in existing law, and reducing these innovations to practice as described in existing law. (20) the term "applied research" means activities directed at discovering the detailed procedures and processes to apply basic scientific discoveries to the production of specific items or to the fulfillment of specific mission objectives. Applied research is typically carried out by three to ten persons over a period of one or more years. (21) the term "exploratory development" means activities directed at applying known and well understood procedures, processes, mechanisms and technologies to see if specific items can be produced or specific mission objectives fulfilled through their application or combination with other processes, procedures, mechanisms and technologies. (22) the term "development" means the process of conceptualizing, designing, prototyping and verifying performance of specific items to meet particular mission requirements, and includes the reduction to practice of a particular manufacturing protocol. Development includes engineering design efforts directed at modification, support and improvement of items to be produced or currently in production, as well as engineering to modify or improve currently fielded equipment. (23) the term "production" means serial manufacture or modification of components without the need for substantial design changes or engineering support. The production process follows from development, and each item is in production until it is finally deployed. (24) the term "maintenance" means the routine service and repair of existing deployed equipment and facilities which does not involve engineering modification to improve performance or capability. (25) the term "operation" means the utilization or management of goods and services for the purposes for which the goods and services were designed. (26) the term "milestone" means an incremental test of developing capabilities in a realisic environment. It typically consists of a date by which certain performance must have been demostrated without exceeding a set cost ceiling. (27) the term "eligible person" in the context of title IX of this Act means any for profit business entity owned and controlled by United States persons, or any natural person who is entitled to work in the United States through being a citizen, national, or through appropriate immigration status. (28) the term "military activities" shall mean any activities involving military personnel or Department of Defense contractors or employees or contractors of the Department of Energy who work on programs or at facilities substantially involved in nuclear weapons related research, development, production or maintenance. (29) the term "military personnel" shall mean members of the armed services, civil servants in the employ of the Department of Defense, or civil servants and contractors of the Department of Energy who derive the majority of their support from nuclear weapons related programs or who work at facilities where the majority of the work is related to nuclear weapons. (30) the term "military contractor" shall mean any person who derives the majority of his support from contracts with the Department of defense, or with the Department of Energy to support nuclear weapons related activities, or any person who works for a corporation, partnership or other business entity which does the majority of its business in this fashion. (31) the term "military space" shall include any and all activities directed at or primarily intended for supporting or assisting in reaching military goals or objectives, or maintaining the capability to do so; as well as any space related activity involving military personnel or military contractors. (32) the term "civilian space" shall include any and all activities directed at understanding the origin, evolution and present state of the solar system and the universe, understanding the origin of life, understanding or exploiting the economic utility of space and celestial bodies, and colonizing or settling space for peaceful purposes and the benefit of all mankind. (33) the term "military" shall include any and all personnel, activities, programs, and goals enumerated in or implied by definitions 28 through 31 above. (34) the term "civilian" shall include those personnel, activities and goals enumerated or implied in definition 32 above or excluded from definition 33. (35) the term "practical use" shall mean efforts consisting of any purposeful ongoing activity with a stated purpose, result or desired end. (36) the term "capitalism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where private parties hold equity in commercial enterprises, and make management decisions concerning their operation and direction. (37) the term "free market" shall mean the socioeconomic system where private parties choose what and how much of various goods and services to buy or sell, as well as what prices to charge for such goods and services. (38) the term "socialism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where the government holds an equity position in commercial enterprises, and makes management decisions concerning their operation or direction. (39) the term "communism" shall mean the socioeconomic system where the government holds an equity position in commercial enterprises, makes management decisions concerning their operation or direction, and where a single agency, department or bureau determines the amounts of goods or services to be offered or produced, or the price to be charged for them. (to be continued) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:35:43 CDT From: Bret Wingert Subject: Shuttle Computers/Software: Redundancy! Crosschecking! Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jul26.210936.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >I think soem one once mentioned that there is more than one computer onboard >the shuttle.. > To quote Ed McMahon: You are correct, sir! There are five computers running the GN&C software during dynamic phases of flight. 4 run identical software and "cross check" each other during the phase. If a computer is out of sync it is "voted out." This has never happened in flight. It could be restarted in orbit if desired. Additionally, there is a 5th computer which runs different software which "listens" during dynamic flight phases. It can be engaged by a crewmember if needed. This also has not ever been necessary. Bret Wingert Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM (713)-282-7534 FAX: (713)-282-8077 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 93 08:43:15 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Soviet manned spacecraft accidents [was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems] Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul26.162212.26962@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv (Gary Coffman) writes: >There have been two dangerous in flight failures of US manned hardware, >one deadly, Apollo 13 and Challenger. The Russians have had one for >sure, and maybe more. The Soviet Union has announced three or four in flight failures of their hardware (depending on whether you count firing the escape rocket on the pad as "in flight"). The Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 accidents resulted in loss of the crews, while the other two (unnumbered by the Soviets) resulted in the longest suborbital spaceflight and the only use of a luanch escape system. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 93 08:37:47 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space In article <1993Jul24.195047.12141@scorch.apana.org.au>, lukpla@scorch (Luke Plaizier) writes: [...] >(80) The following is a long list of trivia tid-bits which comes from the > December 1987 issue of Space Flight News. It was published as a quizz, > and the answers were found in the same issue. Only those questions > worthy of being items of trivia are included. >(a) This is a list of 'should not have but did' of what some astronauts/ > cosmonauts took into space. [...] > (ii) Tom Stafford took a small set of handbells along for the > Gemini 8 mission, which took place just before Christmas. Stafford did not fly on Gemini 8. He did fly on Gemini 6 (sometimes called Gemini 6A) which flew in December 1965. It was launched "out of order" after Gemini 7, and rendezvoused with Gemini 7. >(103) Apollo 1 was scheduled to actually fly in late 1966. As development > of the black-1 spacecraft progressed, it became apparent that the block > Command Module earmarked for the Apollo 1 missions would not be ready > in time for a tentatively-scheduled joint flight involving the > tenth and final manned Gemini mission, Gemini 12, in late 1966. > The tragic Apollo 1 fire occurred in February, 1967. I recall it happening in late January. > [Space Flight News, November 1989] [...] >(114) Of the Apollo astronauts, nearly all of them are alive. Sadly, Jack > Swigert was the first Lunar-Orbiting astronaut, and Deke Slayton > the first Moon Walking astronauts to die. Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon, never went into orbit. Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 02:14:00 BST From: h.hillbrath@genie.geis.com Subject: Test Stands at MSFC > Date: 24 Jul 1993 23:24 CDT wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > > Heck they tested the Saturn V at 110% of rated thrust here, I do not have any recollection of any Saturn V (S-IC) being tested at anymore than "nominal" thrust, at MSFC, or elsewhere. Tell me which one, and I will look it up in my compendium of S-1C test reports. . There were some engine tests ("F-1A") at 1.8 million pounds (which my mental arithmetic says is 120 percent) thrust, but none on vehicles, to my knowledge, and certainly not a set, I don't think there were ever that many of the up-rated engines in existence. I do not recall any of the F-1A tests being at MSFC, but I wouldn't have necessarily known, or remembered that. > In Mississippi the ASRM plant is way off in the boonies with no 250,000 plus city nearby. Yes, near Iuka, at the northeast corner of the state. The proposed static test site is at the Stennis Space Center, which is between Bay Saint Louis and Picayune, that is to say almost as far away from Iuka as is possible in Mississippi, almost in the southwest corner (and not that far from New Orleans). ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 929 ------------------------------