Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 05:03:39 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #292 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 292 Today's Topics: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Controversy over V-2 anniversary DC-X vote Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs) HRMS Laser Space Mirror Military Sat photos, info required Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating RFD: sci.eos Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !) UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan (5 msgs) what use is Freedom? (2 msgs) Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?) 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, 06 Oct 92 20:43:49 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.154855.12520@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >This is a misuse of the word "bootstrap". The scheme does not substitute >a major percent of native materials that would make ensuing steps much >cheaper, as for example a earth-comet-earth-comet propellant bootstrapping >scheme does. Oh please, I realize you believe you have a patent on the use of the word, but really.... Bringing water to earth doesn't strike me as very profitable. Even bringing water to LEO doesn't strike me as profitable. Will probably be easier to ship water outbound in the near-term by using a gas gun or something equally unconventional. A lunar colony needs to have PROFITABLE EXPORTS and a minimium of heavy imports. The only profitable export of the near-term is going to be power. Once you land the initial hardware, LunaOne should be able to use native materials to generate its own oxygen and extract metals to produce more machines. >I've included below just the estimated launch costs for this scheme, at >$40 million per ton to the lunar surface. Where d'ya get $40 mil/ton, laddy? Is that NASA costs? I'm going to subcontract to the Russians. They're the only ones with a Real Big Booster right now. If I could get the little problem with those 4 islands worked out, I'd get the Japanese to provide money; they've already done some gaming of moon construction. >> o "construction shack" & living quarters space > >Based on SSF, presumeably. $120 billion SSF cost + Apollo >cost = $270 billion (see my previous article on FLO). >Construction shack 200 tons, launch cost $8 billion. <> WRONG! All my R&D has been done thanks to the folks at Freed (I'll spot them two letters since they're bending metal now :-) and FLO, since they're going to work out all those problems with long-life suits, plus do all my initial surveys. If I don't like the costs here at home, I'll go talk to the Italians, who are building smaller modules to be installed on Freedom. Or the Russians, who have lots of leftovers, and hungry families. >> o Caterpiller 2000+ Lunar Bulldozer (:-) > >50 tons, $2e9, not including power supply, spare parts and tools. >N.B. must be totally redesigned for 1/6 normal force, electric >power, and vacuum-welding conditions, if "dozer" concept will even >work at all. That's nice. Putting a pricetag on something which you don't think will work. :) Doesn't matter. Maybe I'll have a super-sucker instead, or SOMETHING which will scoop up soil to feed to the O2 plant and smelting facilities. >> o Processing plant to extract O2 from lunar soil > >This is a losing proposition. $2e9 to set down 50 tons of equipment, >which will -- if your engineering is quite advanced! -- produce 50 tons >of LOX per year. The LOX will have all leaked out in that time, >alas. Uh, Nick, why don't you talk to your hero of "Mars Direct" (Name escapes me). He wrote up a scheme for "LunarDirect" which landed one plant to process soil for O2. Some of it will be used for breathing, some for propulsion & energy, fuel cell for the Caterpiller 'dozer, etc. >> o Solar furnace to melt soil for glass & construction material > >50 tons, $8 billion. It will break down before it's output a thousand >tons, though. Astronauts won't be able to fix it, though, any more >than they've been able to fix a myriad of similar problems with the >shuttle over the years. Based on your own considerable experience with space-based furnaces too, no doubt? I respectfully submit the furnace might be the EASIEST thing to construct and build now. It'll need dusted off once in a while, but this is why we have extra 02 to blow off the gunk :-). Not a whole lot of moving parts here, other than a set of focusing mirrors. It'll probably be easier to operate and design than a zero-g one "from scratch." >> o Some food production facility. > >500 tons, $20 billion. This will be a toy, though, since water, air >and organics have to be resupplied from earth as they leak from >the system. Check out SSF resupply costs for estimates. Let's see, we get air from our O2 plant. Water is a little tougher, but we can get some of it from recycling, some from fuel cells. I don't expect immediate closed-cycle results from food production, but I do expect to grow some crops, with an eventual goal of being fully self-sufficient in food somewhere down the road. Care to tell me where your asteroid miners get their food? >billion or $510 billion. The base is still totally dependent on earth for >air, water, and organics, not to mention spare parts, medicine, and >any signficant expasion of the base. No Nick. The base is infrastructure. If you can smelt metals and produce O2, you're half-way home to building other things. Such as solar cells to beam power back to earth (which you so flagantely cut out and ignore). If you can smelt metals, you can produce some spare parts on-site. No matter how you slice it, you'll be dependent on someone in the early stages for medical supplies, supplementary foodstuffs, and high-refinement/low-mass materials. Computing power here is a biggie. > After $540 billion no mass driver or other way to get the LOX off, You can smelt metals and you have power. You build a mass-driver on-site. Radical concept, huh? Even uses native materials. > even if it was useful (it's not -- the market >for LOX in earth orbit is $1 billion a year with 100% penetration, >but this base amortizes to $50 billion a year if you can get in >on the current low interest rates, which you can't, because it's >a high-risk venture). I'm going to skip this, because there's no "market." There's a couple of government outposts, but no set of multiple buyers and sellers as the term "market" implies. >This method of "space development" has been beaten to death. >Give it up, already. There are plenty of other, better ways >to develop space. The Szabo comet express, which is high-risk, and bases itself on the need for what? Alleged U.S. government needs, such as inflated SDIO "needs." Who needs water? Well, LunaOne could use some. Need the hydrogen for the fuel cells, and the crops. You boys *did* want some fresh bread and vegetables, right? :-) Of course, shipping costs to orbit are much cheaper than Earth's, altho' you can get a wider variety from Terra. >>[admits to problem with start-up costs] > >No doubt. This is more than 500 times the amount spent to start >up comsats, which got a large purse for a new industry. Which was built on a goverment-constructed infrastructure and R&D. And is currently maxed. >By comparison, an automated ice extraction scheme could come >in under $10 billion, given some fairly easy advances in tech -- eg >good deep-space electric rockets. *snort* Two problems: A) You have nobody to sell the ice to in orbit. Sorry. B) You use the Shezer ruler of "If my idea, it's cheaper than yours, even if I do play it fast and loose with my R&D numbers." Fundmentally, you have to bring something which is in demand on earth. Clean power is not a bad place to start. It solves the chicken-and-egg problem which you seem to miss, and goes to develop infrastructure to produce metals and O2. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 16:38:17 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <6OCT199211420001@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara writes: >In article , shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes... >>Just a bit more on the V-2 commemoration: I was reading the stack of >>papers that accumulated in my absence and found the story about this >>controversy. The article stated that over 60,000 slave laborers were >>involved and that at least 30,000 did not survive. A German >>person/group proposed that a memorial to these people be erected at >>Peenemunde. I inferred (but it was not explicitly stated) that were >>this to be done, many German or European objections would vanish. >> >>Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA > >Mary that is wrong and you know it. There were never any slave laborers at >Peenumde. Dennis, that is not what she wrote, and YOU SHOULD KNOW IT. Read what she wrote. As I said before, there were some Russian prisoners of war but it >was never identified as to what they did. To connect the mass production >center for the weapons with Peenumde is flat wrong and you know it. She didn't connect the two. She said a German person or group had. Give a >source for your article stating that it was at Peenumde and we will see. Give a source for your accusation first. Or get a grip. And put Peenemunde in your spell list. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:10:13 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DC-X vote Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space The full House voted on the Defense Appropriation yesterday. They voted full funding for the completion of DC-X and the test program. Thanks to those of you who lobbied to make this happen. In addition to the appropriation, the following language was in the final report: Title SSRT The Conferees agree not to delete $35.576 million allocated within the SDI program for this project as recommended by the House. The Conferees agree that the SDIO may complete the subscale suborbital demonstration and tests planned for FY 1993 but also agree that no funds are being provided or may be used for either full scale or orbital planning without prior congressional approval. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 00:15:02 GMT From: Paul Nimmo Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: Hangfore@Spf.Trw.Com Hi all, now someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but, isn't the fundamentl problem with sending waste to the sun the energy requirements? If my schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar system. this being true it certainly does *not* present itself as a fesible alternative. see ya, paul. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Vulcan's World -Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 23:28:24 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space >If my >schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to >toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar >system. Actually, I think you can leave Earth orbit at less than solar system escape velocity, and perform a Jupiter gravity assist manuever that will shoot you straight into the Sun. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:11:17 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: HRMS Newsgroups: sci.space eric@ils.nwu.edu asks: >Would HRMS be able to detect signals from Earth, if (lets pretend) it >was conducted at Tau Ceti? In other words, do we generate signals at >the frequencies HRMS will be listening to? I think the Targeted Search is designed to detect Earth-similar microwave LEAKAGE out to 80 light years. The Sky Survey component can detect Earth-attainable signals out to tens of thousands of light years. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:26:57 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Laser Space Mirror Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.011403.28784@eng.cam.ac.uk> dscy@eng.cam.ac.uk (D.S.C. Yap) writes: >sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > >>>New Scientist this week (No 1841, 3 October 1992) reports that next month a >>>crewless Progress spacecraft will open a space mirror after resupplying Mir >>>at an altitude of 350 km. > >.... I think the solar sail experiment they were planning was intended to >test the viability of using a solar sail for attitude control. I haven't >seen the New Scientist article or (more importantly) any pictures but >I have a suspicion that their sail/mirror design has a lot in common >with the 2m diameter test rig that I'm doing dynamic tests on in the >lab. The company that originally got me interested in my Ph.D. topic... At the World Space Congress, Yuri Semenov - Director NPO Energia, showed a simple drawing of the Progress with the circular sail deployed. Apparently the cosmonauts will replace the Progress docking probe with the sail assembly just before undocking and the sail will deploy parallel to the docking collar with its center where the docking probe would normally be. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 92 03:26:28 GMT From: Paul Britton Subject: Military Sat photos, info required Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: Steve_Grant@kcbbs.gen.nz Steve I have several books that have line drawings of quite alot of US Spy sats, what particular Sats are you interested in, as I do have some photos. Do you have any info on Sats you wish to swap as I am also very interested in this subject . Paul Britton Voice:- 612-9056596 Fax :- 612-9070408 --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Vulcan's World -Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 23:57:29 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Oct6.144746.21347@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the >center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis >that is slowly decaying. It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every >day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere >and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis. >Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be >able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that >that periapsis encounter will be its last. I am not sure I understand this. It seems to me that every time the S/C encounters atmospheric drag, the orbit should lose energy. I always thought that this would circularize the orbit (decrease the apoapsis) before significantly decreasing the periapsis. Where did I go wrong? Don't circular orbits of a given radius have less energy than an elliptical orbit with that same value as the periapsis? -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu ------> shari brooks <------- | bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu All opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 20:49:03 GMT From: Cindy Posinski Subject: RFD: sci.eos Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.space,sci.astro On behalf of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Project Office, I would like to propose the creation of a new moderated newsgroup named SCI.EOS. This newsgroup would be used by the Earth Observing System Distributed Information System (EOSDIS) community for the sharing of EOS related information. It would include postings of "The Processor" and the "The Earth Observer" newsletters which are periodicals containing timely EOS news events and information on up-coming meetings. The newsgroup would also contain information regarding new data sets, and other important EOS related material. There are currently hundreds of scientists around the world involved with the EOSDIS and this would be a great forum for their sharing of ideas. Although the EOSDIS Project covers a broad spectrum of the NASA community, covering many scientific disciplines, we plan to begin with a single newsgroup (SCI.EOS). Depending on the usage of SCI.EOS, sub-newsgroups may be created. As proposed by the EOS Project, this newsgroup (SCI.EOS) would be moderated by an EOS Project Office representative. Cindy Posinski ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 23:14:06 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !) Newsgroups: sci.space Nick Szabo writes: > BTW, how much does this year's close approach to the earth perturb > Toutatis' orbit, and what is the worst-case magnification between > errors in this year's expected flyby distance and that in 2000? I'm not sure how you want to measure the perturbation, but one way of doing it is to say that if you use a strictly two body ephemeris from an epoch prior to the close approach, then at close approach the ephemeris error would be about 900 arcsec. The error goes down afterwards because the topocentric distance is increasing; the linear error in the position of the asteroid would remain rather large. If nobody obtains astrometry during the upcoming close approach (extremely unlikely -- the planned radar data alone would suffice), then yes, the error would be magnified by the time of the even closer approach in 2004. However, the uncertainty in the 2004 close approach will actually be reduced by the December close approach, just from the astrometric data acquired. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 11:07:15 GMT From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" programs on PBS during summer 1991. In one of them, he STILL maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO Spacecraft, "just stories". I should think that by now he would have heard about the Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger somewhere. The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it. All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and military. A couple of years ago, the TV program "Unsolved Mysteries" showed an excellent segment about the incident. The Roswell Incident illustrates a serious problem here. Whenever there IS physical evidence of a UFO Spacecraft, the military always confiscates it, using "national security" as an excuse, and then ACTS LIKE THE MAFIA toward the finders and other witnesses by THREATENING them if they don't keep silent! (They did it to the rancher in the Roswell Incident.) I wonder if Carl Sagan has been pressured by the government into continuing to make negative public statements about UFO's. It's too bad that so many people accept his pronouncements without question. He may very well be another case of THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND. This is supposed to be a FREE country. FREEDOM OF SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land. The government (and its military) is supposed to be of, by, and for The People, NOT the other way around. People need to know THE TRUTH about EVERYTHING in order to intelligently participate in the democratic process. It is an ORGANIZED CRIME for the government to withhold or suppress information and physical evidence of UFO's from us. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 23:06:08 GMT From: "John S. Novak III" Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan [...] Come now, Robert, repeating the same postings? How boring. Make up something new. > UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this > IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Uh-huh. -- "Whoever designed that building probably puts flowers over their "i"'s." -Robert Parker John S. Novak, III darknite@camelot.bradley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:22:10 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space I see Mr McElwaine has given up on sci.physics and moved here. :( In article <1992Oct6.170715.1564@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan oh, no. I had no idea they were contending. [stuff deleted] > I should think that by now he would have heard about the > Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were > found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the > U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger > somewhere. The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on > Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it. > All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and > military. A couple of years ago, the TV program "Unsolved > Mysteries" showed an excellent segment about the incident. I think that you may be confusing the program with a terrible science fiction B-movie entitled "Hangar 13". This movie was so bad that the scene where the shuttle astronauts looked out their window while on orbit showed black space, no stars. But it is for the most part summarized in the above quote. [more *stuff* deleted] > This is supposed to be a FREE country. FREEDOM OF > SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land. The > government (and its military) is supposed to be of, by, and > for The People, NOT the other way around. People need to Wait a minute. Didn't your last post to sci.space claim the government was Bolshevik? I could swear it did. Did you change your mind? > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ^^^^three guesses what it stands for I restricted distribution cuz our friends overseas shouldn't have to read this. -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu ------> shari brooks <------- | bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu All opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:04:01 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.170715.1564@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > > > UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan > > I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" > programs on PBS during summer 1991. In one of them, he STILL > maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO > Spacecraft, "just stories". > > I should think that by now he would have heard about the > Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were > found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the > U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger > somewhere. The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on > Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it. ... > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC What planet did THIS fellow fall from??? C'mon, guy, post to alt.conspiracy or alt.ufo.what-ever. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:56:19 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space Robert E. McElwaine, Esq., states: > It's too bad that so many people accept his [Dr. Carl Sagan's] > pronouncements without question. I agree with Bob, but only on this one, *small*, point. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical macaques" and the thesis that Patrick Buchanan is a "baboon" - not to his well-founded and exciting work modeling the chemistry of Saturn's moon, Titan!) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 00:01:11 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: >From the very first flight on, Freedom will have _twice_ the power output >of Skylab. By PMC, that will grow to six times. Freedom also offers much >expandability beyond PMC, and more power sources will be added before EMCC. What does EMCC stand for? -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu ------> shari brooks <------- | bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu All opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:02:10 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1at9c7INNs1a@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >In article kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: > >>From the very first flight on, Freedom will have _twice_ the power output >>of Skylab. By PMC, that will grow to six times. Freedom also offers much >>expandability beyond PMC, and more power sources will be added before EMCC. > >What does EMCC stand for? Sorry, I should have spelled out my acronyms. Here they are: MTC: Man-Tended Configuration PMC: Permanently Manned Configuration EMCC: Eight-Man Crew Configuration EMCC is the unfunded next step after PMC. Current plans are to add a second US Lab module and a second hab module (this one will have the crew "quarters" deleted when the hab module shrunk) and more power. Basically, this is to get back most of the capability lost during the frequent redesigns throughout the years. NASA is Congressionally mandated to not spend significant amounts of money on this, but it is looking at the configutation so as to not eliminate the hooks and scars to attach these items onto. It will almost certainly be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis with almost every hardware flight requiring Congressional approval (I should add that last sentence is my opinion only). My major point is that PMC is not "assembly complete." Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 22:18:21 GMT From: yannb@yang.earlham.edu Subject: Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?) Newsgroups: sci.space I don't see why NASA, ESA, and the Japanese Space Agencies should spend all that money on this Space Station Freedom. My question is: why not spend less, and have each country but a module on the Mir? The Russians have a Mir on the ground too; in mothballs. This second Mir is also to be launched into orbit using the powerful Proton rockets, which would be much cheaper to use than the current NASA shuttles (It has been qualified for operations in space). The first Mir station (the one thats up there now) , has proven itself to all space agencies of it's durability and worthiness. Intsead of building a whole new space station, which would take millions of $$$ and years to build, the world should turn towards the already constructed and mothballed Mir, which is gathering dust somewhere in Russia. /\ yannb@yang.earlham.edu |/ \ ------ | | Yann Bandy | /\ | 808 Abington Pike | || | Earlham College /| \/ |\ Richmond, IN | / | | \ | 47374 |/ | | \| | / | | \ | |/ | | \| / | | \ |/ | | \| MiGs |-------| |-------| | | are | /\ | /| || |\ MASTERS!! |/ | || | \| / _| || |_ \ |/ =||= \| \/ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 292 ------------------------------