Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 05:00:06 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #482 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 2 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 482 Today's Topics: Antarctic video relay (was Re: Dante on "Nightline") Astro-FTP list, November issue (2 msgs) FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Graduate student fellowship in helioseismology HST black hole pix *or* Hubble Hype? (Was: HST black hole pix) Kuiper belt planetesimals and Planet X claim NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions (3 msgs) Shuttle replacement (3 msgs) Soyuz escape system (was: Re: Shuttle replacement) (3 msgs) Spaceborne Artificial Intelligence, Anyone? Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) What comes after DC-1 What is the SSTO enabling technology? who was Jack Parsons? 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: 1 Dec 92 11:18:35 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Antarctic video relay (was Re: Dante on "Nightline") Newsgroups: sci.space In article , schwehr@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Kurt Schwehr) writes: > I can't really comment on the CMU Dante project but I can give a bit of > info about Carol Stoker's telepresence ROV project. There are three > primary objectives of her program in Antartica: [...] > 2) Communications - They (both groups) are the first to set up live > video from the Antarctic. The idea is to have a telepresence > operator trying to drive the vehicles in Antarctic from the > continental USA. Kurt, can you tell us more about how this is achieved? I know it's difficult to talk to geosynchronous comsats from the polar regions-- both because they're low on the horizon (or below it) and because the satellite's antenna footprint usually doesn't cover high latitudes well. Are they using GEO satellites anyway, or are they relaying video through some polar-orbiting spacecraft? O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 12:07:07 GMT From: M{kel{ Veikko Subject: Astro-FTP list, November issue Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1992Nov28.220419.27065@networx.com> mikel@networx.com (Mike Lempriere) writes: >How 'bout a FAQ list? FAQ list of sci.astro and sci.space newsgroups will posted monthly to the newsgroup by Jon Leech. This list is also available via FTP from: ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/faq* ftp.funet.fi:pub/astro/general/faqlist.txt Veikko Makela Computing Centre Univ. of Helsinki Finland ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 92 22:04:19 GMT From: mikel@networx.com Subject: Astro-FTP list, November issue Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space How 'bout a FAQ list? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 92 15:36:30 GMT From: Cameron Newham Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov28.160403.15010@r-node.gts.org> taob@r-node.gts.org writes: > > third time I read about "free energy" and he replied in the same haughty, > sensationalist style (with many capitalized words!) which characterizes his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is because he is probably using a special filter called "capword" that capitalises scientific words and a random selection of other words in everything he writes. :) I think there is a man page for it here somewhere....... > public bulletins. I keep telling him to post on sci.skeptic, but he ignores > me. :) WHY should he post to sci.skeptic! He OBVIOUSLY believes what he writes and THINKS the world does too! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Cameron _@/ |"Welcome to the jungle. We take it day by day. | |cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au | If you want it you're gonna bleed, | |cam@adied.oz.au | but it's the price you pay." -- Guns 'N Roses | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 17:40:58 GMT From: Frank Hill Subject: Graduate student fellowship in helioseismology Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics Graduate Student Research Fellowship in Helioseismology National Solar Observatory Tucson, Arizona The National Solar Observatory (NSO), a division of the Na- tional Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) located in Tucson, Arizona, has a research opportunity for a graduate student in the field of helioseismology. This position is in support of the NASA/Stanford Solar Oscillations Investi- gation (SOI) project, but the successful candidate will re- side in Tucson. Applicants must be currently enrolled in good standing in a doctoral graduate program at an accredit- ed university, must have an official thesis advisor, and must have completed all course work and passed any necessary qualifying examinations at their university. The research topic must also be approved by the candidate's thesis com- mittee. The topic should be in the area of helioseismology, the study of solar oscillations and their use in probing the solar interior. Although theoretical studies will also be considered, preference will be given to observational helioseismology using moderately high-resolution images similar to those that will be obtained by the SOI experi- ment. NSO will soon begin operating the High-Degree Helioseismometer (HDH) at the Kitt Peak Vacuum Telescope. This instrument will obtain 1024 X 1024 full-disk Ca K in- tensity solar images, which provide a useful proxy for the SOI data. Possible research topics include the development of techniques to measure the parameters of high-degree os- cillations, the development of four-dimensional Fourier transform techniques to study wave propagation in the solar atmosphere, the development of inversion methods, and the theoretical and observational study of wave trapping in su- pergranules. The research advisor at NSO will be Dr. Frank Hill, the Glo- bal Oscillation Network Group (GONG) Data Scientist. The GONG Project is a ground-based helioseismology experiment that will be deploying six observing stations in California, Hawaii, Australia, India, the Canary Islands, and Chile in 1994. Further information can be obtained from: Dr. Frank Hill National Solar Observatory PO Box 26732 Tucson, AZ 85726-6732 Phone: (602)-323-4138 Fax: (602)-325-9278 E-mail: fhill@noao.edu (Internet) A CV and three letters of recommendation should be sent to Revell Rayne Personnel Director National Optical Astronomy Observatories PO Box 26732 Tucson, AZ 85726-6732 Applications should be received by December 31, 1992. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 17:25:25 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: HST black hole pix *or* Hubble Hype? (Was: HST black hole pix) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article 1@stsci.edu, gawne@stsci.edu () writes: >Well Craig, I've no idea what you saw on TV but there IS a public domain >image of something that looks a lot like an accretion disk around a >(suspected -- with pretty good reason) black hole. Hey people, stop listening to the Hubble Hype for a moment and *look* at the image! You will *not* see an accretion disk. You *will* see a bright ring that ends 170 parsecs (= 1 arcsec for a more reasonable distance of 35.1 Mpc [Nearby Galaxies Catalog, Tully]) from a bright smudge in the center. Bright nuclear rims are common (our own Galaxy has one, much closer in). The smudge is potentially interesting. It is roughly conical and about 0.2 arcsec across (= 17 pc radius) at its base. Now, a 2x10^9 Msun black hole has a Schwarzschild radius of 10^-4 pc. The size of the luminous part of an accretion disk for a hole of this mass is uncertain (especially if it is illuminated from above by a hot corona or jet shocks) but is almost certainly <100 Schwarz. radii = 0.1 pc. Thus, nothing new has been resolved in this image. Even the radiation cone, which extends from the central smudge and which is aligned with the large-scale radio jet, has been better seen in nearer AGN's, notably NGC 1068, from space and from the ground. Spectroscopy of the nuclear filaments with the FOS after COSTAR installation may show non-circular gas motions, but the fueling channel hasn't even been identified in our own Galaxy where the spatial resolution of superior instrumentation is orders of magnitude better. --- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 08:26:25 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Kuiper belt planetesimals and Planet X claim Newsgroups: sci.space Anita Cochran writes: > Tom Van Flandern writes: >> The one such object recently sighted apparently is not a Kuiper belt >> comet, but a possible member of the Saturn family of asteroids or comets. All >> other searches for Kuiper belt objects have so far proved fruitless. And the >> reasons for expecting a Kuiper belt at all have now been called into >> question. The whole concept is close to being ready to file away next to >> "cold fusion." > Gee, I was not aware that 1992QB1 was NOT a Kuiper object. Actually, > as I understand it (unless there is a new orbit in the last week) there > are two possible solutions. One is a circular orbit with the distance > putting it as a Kuiper Belt distance and the other is the Saturn > family object that Tom mentions. But, as of a little over a week ago, > the orbit was still indeterminate. That is why Brian Marsden has asked > that I try to get a new position in late December or January. Jan Luu > (one of the discovers of QB1) was supposed to observe it Thanksgiving > but I am not sure if she got anything. Our run was pretty well weathered > out. Thus, there is still a possibility of 1 object in an orbit which > matches the predicted Kuiper belt. I've heard rumors of some astrometry from the southern hemisphere (AAT?) in the last couple of weeks that satisfies the circular orbit better than the elliptical one, though I'll reserve judgment on the matter until a new orbit solution is published. This much I will say: I agree with Anita that it is premature to discard the Kuiper Belt hypothesis. Tom's conclusion that the one sighted object is not a Kuiper Belt object is extremely premature, and the above rumor would seem to contradict that claim. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 14:03:01 GMT From: mpe@shamash.cdc.com Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space I was listening to the radio this morning when the announcer stated "The most expensive junk yard is out-of-this world". He went on to say that NASA has over $500 million of salvageable junk up on the moon. Among the items listed were golf balls, color TV sets, flags, and 5 hand grenades. What are 5 hand grenades doing on the moon and why would NASA send them up with the astronauts??? Inquiring mines want to know... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 16:02:48 GMT From: Edmund Hack Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space In article <50044@shamash.cdc.com> mpe@shamash.cdc.com () writes: >I was listening to the radio this morning when the announcer >stated "The most expensive junk yard is out-of-this world". He >went on to say that NASA has over $500 million of salvageable ^^^^^^^^^^^ Dubious use of "salvageable", but then most in the press never took a science course beyond "Rocks for Jocks" or "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" (as we called the science for the math-illiterate in college). >junk up on the moon. Among the items listed were golf balls, >color TV sets, flags, and 5 hand grenades. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ probably cameras. > >What are 5 hand grenades doing on the moon and why would NASA >send them up with the astronauts??? The "hand grenades" ar probably the small mortar rounds from the active seismic systems that were sent up. They had a few mortar rounds that were fired off (after the crew left, I think) to produce shock waves for analysis. Similar charges are used in oil exploration, except they are emplaced in holes drilled in the ground. > >Inquiring mines want to know... Claymore, perhaps??? -- Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah.. "You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus." "Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 15:26:24 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space mpe@shamash.cdc.com wrote: > I was listening to the radio this morning when the announcer > stated "The most expensive junk yard is out-of-this world". He > went on to say that NASA has over $500 million of salvageable > junk up on the moon. Among the items listed were golf balls, > color TV sets, flags, and 5 hand grenades. > > What are 5 hand grenades doing on the moon and why would NASA > send them up with the astronauts??? > > Inquiring mines want to know... Wasn't there an Urban Legend to the effect that Armstrong & Co. were issued .45 automatics just in case? -- ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 13:57:37 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <70618@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: > I don't know about the DC, but it probably will avoid > a blackout zone, too, if Mc-D leases TDRS space from NASA or something. No, American Airlines will avoid blackout if they lease TDRS space. Mc-D builds them but likely won't want to operate them if and when there is a large demand for them. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 14:35:09 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov30.223021.10237@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes: > I'd be very surprised if the pad is "just" a support. One of >the problems with the recent (test? use?) of an MX booster as a >commercial launcher was severe acoustic loading due to its launch from >an unimproved site. I think the fact that they use solids would also be a major factor. >I would expect a pad with exhaust diverters, water quenching, etc. to >reduce similar loads on a DC (or any big rocket for that matter). Nope. In fact, acoustic load is actually better than an airliner since it goes straight up and doesn't fly low over populated areas. >>Total turnaround is expected to cost around $10 million. I have seen figures >>for ground crew size and from memory is was on the order of 10 people. > I'd be REAL skeptical of this. Well that's what their task analysis says. We will know for sure in a year or so. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 18:23:46 GMT From: Pat Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov30.161913.11250@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >Well that's true, but that three year delay wasn't the fault of Shuttle, >it was the fault of the managers who refused to listen to MT engineers >who said it was too cold to launch. And it was the fault of a bureaucracy >who stopped the world instead of putting strip heaters on the joints, or >saying "Gee I guess we *really* shouldn't launch when it's that cold" and >continuing to launch. It was the fault of a risk averse America. > Gary, i reccomend you read the rogers commision report. Henry has and he doesnt think this way. There were numerous problems with the SRBs and it took a significant period of time, i.e. 3 years before they finished arguing about the cause of the shuttle loss. remember that even in warm weather they were getting o-ring burn through. remember that it turned out the aft struts had significantly less margin of safety then they were supposed to. realize that the Field joint mechanical characteristic was exactly the reverse of what they had intended. the three year hiatus was vital for fixing numerous problems, many of which could have led to total loss of the shuttle. now if this were an experimental test program, you push on. The X-15 was losing aircraft/space craft. they were killing pilots, they were having major problems, but it was an experimental research program. losing a shuttle with the HST would have been an unmitigated disaster. losing the CGRO would have been a disiaster. lsoing galileo would have been a major problem. Cargo carrying, crewed semi-operational vehicles would have been a major problem....... Gary i think you should study under what conditions risk is applied, before you grandly declare it was a risk averse america. Remember, we ground entire airline fleets and military birds when problems are detected and fixes are applied. the AH-64 spent half its life until 1988 grounded for one problem or another. the F-14s spent months flying under restricted conditions because they kept stalling and falling into the water. the DC-10 spent months grounded after chicago. they forced groundings of 747s pening emergency inspections of cargo hatches after the UAL problem..... operational aircraft are always restricited until they know and understand the problem. we dont want anymore comets. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 13:43:14 GMT From: Chris Jones Subject: Soyuz escape system (was: Re: Shuttle replacement) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec1.055205.29832@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar (Simon E. Booth) writes: >I read in James Oberg's book "Uncovering Soviet Disasters" that supposedly >the first manned launch abort was in 1975 involving a Soyuz launch. Apparently >the cosmonauts fired the escape rockets when the booster vehicle exploded after >lift-off. They rode to a rough landing but otherwise survived. As I said in <19260@ksr.com>, there have been two reported Soyuz launch aborts. Your story sounds like a corruption of the two. One abort involved firing the escape rocket, but this was done by the launch controllers in a blockhouse (not by the cosmonauts in the spacecraft), and, although the booster had caught fire, it hadn't lifted off. Whether the booster eventually exploded rather than continuing to burn fiercely is not clear to me, so those of you who care about such things can research further. Seconds passed from the decision to abort to the actual firing of the escape rockets as the first attempt to fire the escape rockets failed due the the fire having burned through some electrical connections. Another system using radio was used to fire the rockets (why they didn't just radio the cosmonauts and tell them to eject is an interesting question--I have to believe they have the capability to fire the tower from within the spacecraft). The other launch abort took place after the first two stages of the rocket and the escape tower and shroud had all been jettisoned. While the third stage was firing to place the Soyuz in orbit, some malfunction took place which caused it to deviate from the correct path. At this point the Soyuz was separated from the booster and made a steep reentry, subjecting the cosmonauts to higher than normal G forces. I've read that US monitoring of their communications during descent revealed that their greatest concern was that they would land in China (they ended up landing in the Soviet Union, rather close to the Chinese border). -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 14:41:26 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Soyuz escape system (was: Re: Shuttle replacement) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec1.055205.29832@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >I read in James Oberg's book "Uncovering Soviet Disasters" that supposedly >the first manned launch abort was in 1975 involving a Soyuz launch. Apparently >the cosmonauts fired the escape rockets when the booster vehicle exploded >after lift-off. This implies that the Titan accident in 86 would also have been survivable to a crew in a capsule with an excape rocket. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 17:29:34 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Soyuz escape system (was: Re: Shuttle replacement) Newsgroups: sci.space OK you are right, I have forgotten about this first incident. But your description is not accurate. There have been indeed TWO occasions when Russians used their escape system. First accident occured on Apr 5th, 1975. The third stage of the Soyuz launcher did not work properly (there was no fire) The escape system separated the spacecraft from the stack. The spacecraft landed safely in Altay mountains, although g-forces have been very high. The crew was Lazarev and Makarov. Makarov was flying in space twice after the incident. Second accident occured on 27 sep 1983. The rocket caught fire on the launch pad. The crew was Titov and Strekalov. Both survived unharmed and both have been flying in space afterwards. Titov is still active. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 08:38:05 GMT From: "Eric A. Raymond" Subject: Spaceborne Artificial Intelligence, Anyone? Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.space Our group has two near term "AI" projects going up on shuttle in the next few months: SHOOT AFDeX and ASA. AFDeX (pronounced \'af-dek\)* is a system which provides autonomous control, diagnosis, and error recovery of a cryogenics payload called SHOOT. The system is designed to control the experiment in real-time without support from ground yet provide the crew with a high-level interface to monitor and modify the behaviour of the system. ASA (Astronaut Science Advisor) is a system which schedules crew experiments with an instrument, monitors data, and modifies the schedule (protocol) based upon it's analysis of the data and the time remaining. The experiment itself deals with vestibular physiology using a device called a Rotating Dome.** AFDeX runs on a standard piece of shuttle hardware called a PGSC (a flight qualified 80386 laptop). ASA runs on a flight qualified Apple Macintosh Powerbook. Although I believe there is nothing special about computer programs running in space versus those bound to to Earth (or for that matter, "AI" .vs. sophisticated "traditional" computer programs), I am interested in news of other space related AI projects. Will these programs be the first of their "type" to fly in space? (*) The X in AFDeX is a greek chi. A verbal pun of Shuttle's "Aft Deck" or Aft Flight Deck (hence AFD in NASA'ese) where the system will run. (**) I am probably not doing justice to the ASA project. I am less familiar with that system than my own. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 18:05:56 GMT From: Pat Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: > >>By the way. Why not use a parachute to get rid of the final 50 >>meters per second or so. Would a chute be lighter than the extra fuel? > >I believe the trade studies suggested that parachutes wouldn't save very much >mass and that the extra effort required to repack the 'chutes after every >mission would be significant. Parachutes for vehicles that massive get pretty >large and complicated themselves. >-- High performance specialty chutes cost a minor fortune. they are used for army cargo drops or weapon drogues, but they arent cheap. Also they do increase system complexity. if the chute fails to open you need an extra chute or if you use triple chutes you need to be able to eject the failed one. unless you guarantee it wont foul the others. otherwise you still have to have the engines as a backup for chute failure. also with chutes, now you are vulnerable to wind gusts and you lose significant descent control. 747's dont land as gliders because they need the power, nor do they pop chutes and gently drifyt down. Now i know this would make gary coffman happy, no more blazing balls of ROCKET FUEL crashing into DISNEYLAND!!!!!! so maybe we should compromise system design, throw away the manueverability to SHUT UP GARY. pat (Absolutely no subliminal messages in my sig) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 14:26:51 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: What comes after DC-1 Newsgroups: sci.space In article David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >DC-1, the commercial orbital version of the Delta Clipper is >a long way off That is largely up to us. If we can get the research prototypes (DCX and DCY) funded then we could have a working airline certified Delta Clipper by the end of the decade. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 14:39:10 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: What is the SSTO enabling technology? Newsgroups: sci.space In article gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: >My understanding is that an SSTO project has only just crossed the >line of possible, hence the interest in the DC-X & followon. What is >the main changing technology that makes an SSTO possible? According to the assessment of SSX done by the Aerospace Corporation, it is now possible dur to slight improvements in the specific impulse of engines and some new lighter materials. Others say that it has been possible for a long time. The main problem (as is often the case) is the preconceptions of the people involved. This is a radical departure from the usual and that takes time to absorb. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 92 17:11:56 GMT From: Jim Lattis Subject: who was Jack Parsons? Newsgroups: sci.space Has anyone ever heard of this guy? He's supposed to have been an early rocket guy at Cal Tech before the days of JPL, killed in an explosion in 1952. I've heard he was also involved with L. Ron Hubbard (of Scientology ill-fame) in the early days. I'd appreciate any pointers to information about him. Thanks. -jim lattis, space astronomy lab ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 482 ------------------------------