Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 04:59:58 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #526 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 10 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 526 Today's Topics: Aurora dialog between D. Goldin and C. Sagan ELV Manifest CY93 Galileo Update - 12/08/92 NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Orbit Question? (3 msgs) Philanthropist Targets Science Community in Former Soviet Union with Largest-Ever Private Contribution Rush Limbaugh and the SAUCER PEOPLE Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax! Satellite Tracking STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (2 msgs) Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!? YOU can do real cosmonaut training 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: 8 Dec 92 22:19:48 EST From: waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov Subject: Aurora Newsgroups: sci.space Thought Y'all might find this interesting (those financial guys always have the scoop.) From Wall Street Journal... Magazine Suggests Aircraft Has Flown Mach 8 for Years New evidence suggests that the U.S. is operating secret spy planes, possibly cruising as fast as eight times the speed of sound, and that such aircraft may have been flying for over three years. An article prepared for Jane's Defence Weekly, a British military-affairs journal, suggest strongly that a $1 billion plane capable of far greater speed than the current world record-holding SR-71 spy plane is indeed in service globally. The speculation is based in part on a trained aircraft observer's recently reported 1989 sighting of a mysterious wedge-shaped aircraft, flying over the north sea in a formation with the U.S. built F-111 bombers and a KC-135 tanker. The description of the plane given by British oil-drilling engineer and trained aircraft spotter Chris Gibson is sketchy-little more, in fact, than an unfamiliar aircraft shape he says he watched from his remote North Sea oil rig for about 90 seconds one hazy August day three years ago. But in an intriguing analysis for Jane's, made available the Wall Street Journal in advance of next week's scheduled publication, the stealth technology expert who wrote the article uses the sighting as the missing link in a chain of events he believes may explain a number of U.S. military mysteries. Citing other experts in so-called hypersonic aviation, author Bill Sweetman paints a picture of the hush-hush reconnaissance plane that he believes replaced the Lockheed Corp.'s SR-71 Blackbird when the U.S. took it out of service in early 1990. That jet, which holds the official speed record of 2,193 mph, about Mach 3.3, would be a slow-poke compared to the Mach 8 aircraft (5,280 mph) that Mr. Sweetman suggests flew over Mr. Gibson that day in the North Sea. The Pieces Fall Into Place His article proposes that the new plane - rumored for years to be called Aurora because that name mysteriously popped up as an unexplained defence budget line item in 1984 next to the SR-71 - is also build by Lockheed, with engines by Rockwell International Corp.'s Rocketdyne division. The Jane's report suggests: The planes cost about $1 billion each; they first flew in about 1985; and they have been the source of a series of strange earth-quake-like rumbles still occurring in Southern California and other areas of the world. With "this last piece" of information, Mr. Sweetman says in an interview, "there are so many things that fall into place." The most important, he says, may be the mystery of why the U.S. retired its last SR-71 spy plane in 1990 with the explanation that it would rely instead on satellites to meet the reconnaissance needs once satisfied by the aircraft, believed capable of operations well above 100,000 feet. The Jane's article, echoing others suggestions that the statement about satellites was intended as a cover for development of a new spy plane, notes that aircraft have a certain reconnaissance usefulness that orbiting cameras can't match. "The satellite system is believed to be capable of producing imagery within 24 hours of a request: at Mach 8, however, the flight time to any point on Earth is under three hours," the article says. "Unlike a satellite, the aircraft can be scheduled to pass over a target at any desired time of day," and flies closer to the target. The 'Skunk Works' Legacy Lockheed won't comment on any secret programs it has going, and refers questions about reconnaissance to the Air Force. But Lockheed Advanced Development Co., the unit popularly known as the "Skunk Works," long has been considered the shop likely to be producing any future spy planes because it developed the last two generations of U-2 and SR-71 planes in the 1950s and 1960s. Both planes flew spy missions in total secrecy for years before being acknowledged - in the U-2's case only after pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down in one in 1960. The California Skunk Works also produced the F-117 Stealth Fighter, which also flew secretly before its existence was acknowledged. The explanation of what he'd seen didn't become clear to Mr. Gibson, a veteran of the now-disbanded Royal Observer Corps of volunteer aircraft spotters, until he recently saw a drawing in an aircraft magazine of a putative hypersonic aircraft design that matched the perfect triangle shape with its 75-degree nose. "I nearly spat my coffee out all over the floor," says the 30-year-old Mr. Gibson of his reaction to finally seeing a design that seemed to explain what he'd seen three years earlier. In a telephone interview from Houston, where he is attending an engineering training program, Mr. Gibson says that while he couldn't make out much detail of the mystery plane's underside, he easily eliminated all other aircraft shapes that might explain planes of the same size, including F-111s with wings in a swept-back position. According to the Jane's report, the "perfect 75-degree swept triangle" described by Mr. Gibson corresponded "almost exactly" to designs of Mach 5, or hypersonic, aircraft designed but not built over the past 25 years. Mr. Sweetman took his collected data about the size and shape of the plane and descriptions of unidentified aircraft noise reported from such places as Edwards and Beale Air Force bases in California, where secret planes are often held, and presented them to Paul Czysz, an aerospace-engineering professor at St. Louis University for an opinion. Prof. Czysz is quoted as speculating that such a plane could be powered by liquid methane, which could take it to a maximum cruise speed of Mach 8. As for selecting Lockheed and Rockwell as the likely makers, the Jane's article notes that "Lockheed's financial figures have indicated a continuing, large flow of income for 'classified' and 'special mission' aircraft." The engine responsible for the strange noises that have been heard in California "is closer to a rocket than to a turbojet," the article says. Lockheed and Rockwell worked together on a losing bid to build the bomber that eventually became Northrop Corp.'s B-2, the Jane's article says. And while it isn't noted there, one industry official earlier this year confirmed that the two companies had been involved in a classified project for years. Figuring that the aircraft would likely be in very low production - only 50 SR-71s or predecessor aircraft were made, beginning in the early 1960s - the article says that "each reconnaissance aircraft could easily cost as much as $1 billion." Lockheed reported sales of aeronautical systems totaling $2.2 billion in 1991, an amount that has steadily fallen from the $4.2 billion recorded in 1987. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems spokesman Richard Stadler, a veteran of having to decline comment on past classified programs, says the company won't discuss revenues of any classified programs, but adds that at the Skunk Works, "supporting the F-117 is the largest program we've got now as far as active programs go." A spokesman for the Rockwell Rocketdyne division says the company doesn't build engines for any reconnaissance aircraft, although he adds that Rocketdyne does have some classified programs that it can't discuss. The speculation about hypersonic aircraft flying over California has special interest for that state's residents, many of whom have felt what they thought were small rumbling earthquakes for nearly a year and a half - only to be told by representatives of the U.S. Geological Survey that some peculiar unreported aircraft were probably responsible. Scientists have referred to the phenomena as "airquakes" and even described the speed and size of the aircraft that might cause them. The Jane's article suggests that the speed and size correspond to those of the mystery spy plane. As an author, Mr. Sweetman has had considerable experience studying secret aircraft, having written extensively on the Stealth fighter before the Air Force disclosed the existence of that program. He has since written a book on the program. His magazine article engages in heavy speculation of course, calling its findings "a tentative analysis." When asked about the sightings, a public affairs officer at the Air Force, which for years denied the existence of the plane now known as the F-117 says, "As far as the Air Force is concerned, there is no such program," and satellites are doing all reconnaissance work. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Waterman [Aqua] / NASA Space Shuttle Main Engine Avionics waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 00:31:48 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: dialog between D. Goldin and C. Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec8.204847.11925@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes: >projects like Ulysseus to Saturn, now a four billion dollar, 20-year monster. Sorry, I meant Cassini. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 22:17:22 EST From: waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov Subject: ELV Manifest CY93 Newsgroups: sci.space Hello, Someone had asked me a while back for an expendable launch manifest. A little late but here is what I managed to dig up. ELV Launch Manifest for CY93 (from manifest dated 11/16/92) Date Vehicle Pri/Sec Payload Launch Site 01/93 Pegasus ALEXIS B-52/DFRF 01/93 Ariane 4 (42P) GALAXY 4 French Guiana 03/93 Atlas I UHF-1 CCAFS 03/93 Conestoga COMET 1 WFF 03/93 Ariane 4 (44L) HISPASAT 1B/INSAT 2B French Guiana 03/93 Delta II GPS?? / SEDS-1 CCAFS 05/93 Scout RADCAL VAFB 05/93 Pegasus APEX B-52/DFRF 05/93 Pegasus LEAP-7 B-52/DFRF 05/93 Ariane 4 (44L) ASTRA 1C/ARSENE French Guiana 05/93 Delta II GPS?? / PMQ CCAFS 2Q/93 Atlas I UHF-2 CCAFS 06/93 Atlas E NOAA-I VAFB 07/93 Scout MSTI-II VAFB 08/93 Pegasus ORBCOMM FDM L-1011 09/93 Pegasus SEASTAR L-1011 09/93 Ariane 4 (40) EPOT-3/ASAP-4 French Guiana 10/93 Pegasus SLV-1 L-1011 10/93 Atlas IIAS TELSTAR 4/F1 CCAFS 10/93 Ariane 4 (44LP) INTELSAT VII F1 French Guiana 11/93 Ariane 4 (44LP) SOLIDARIDAD 1/MOP-3 French Guiana 12/93 Delta II WIND CCAFS 12/93 Atlas GOES-I CCAFS 12/93 Pegasus STEP-2 L-1011 12/93 Delta II NATO IV CCAFS 12/93 Ariane 4 (44L) DIREC-TV 1/THAICOM 1 French Guiana This list is only what NASA is carrying on its unclassified schedule. The GPS launches are only a guess on my part as the manifest only list the secondary payloads for those launches. Even though the local paper posts the launch date and time for GPS missions the Air Force and McDonnell Douglas consider it to be sensitive (I guess they don't read the paper :) ) This is also a first cut at this list. When I get updates I will post them. Please Don't ask me what the payloads are (they could be typos I got them from a Faxed copy of the manifest) also I'm just an Main Engine guy and don't deal directly with the Payloads. A final note since I come from the shuttle world naturally I don't believe schedules (any schedule is out of date the moment it is printed). For what it is worth. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Waterman [Aqua] / NASA Space Shuttle Main Engine Avionics waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 92 11:31:39 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 12/08/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager GALILEO STATUS REPORT Earth Flyby December 8, 1992 The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-spin mode and is transmitting coded telemetry at 115.2 Kbps (115,200 bits/second). Yesterday, part 2 of the EE-11 Earth encounter memory load sequence was uplinked. Moon closest approach occurred at approximately 7:58 PM PST. The stored sequence controlled Sun vector update was performed. Continuous tracking was scheduled over DSS-12 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), DSS-16 (Goldstone 26 meter antenna), DSS-42 (Canberra 34 meter antenan), DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna), DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna) and DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna). Today, December 8, 1992, Earth closest approach occurred at approximately 7:09 AM PST. Real-time commands are being sent to enable the Sun algorithms, set the Command Loss Timer to 11 days, and update attitude control bright body vectors. Near continuous tracking is scheduled over DSS-12, DSS-16, DSS-42, DSS-43, DSS-46 (Canberra 26 meter antenna) and DSS-63. Tomorrow, Earth closest approach and SSI (Solid State Imaging camera) zoom movie observations are continuing. A GOPEX (Galileo Optical Communications Experiment from an Earth-based Xmitter) experiment is scheduled to begin. Tracking is scheduled over DSS-14, DSS-43 and DSS-63. #### [Below I've summarized some of the highlights of Galileo's 1992 Earth-Moon encounter. Ron Baalke ] Dec 7 - Moon observations. Galileo will be passing three times closer to the Moon than it did in its first Earth flyby two years ago. It passed over the North Pole of the Moon at a distance of 110,288 km (68,530 miles). Observations include multi-spectral coverage and mapping of the Moon, and searching for indications of water at the North Pole. Earth observations. Examinations of the dark side of the Earth in search for lightning and aurorae for comparison with Venus measurements and future Jupiter observations. Dec 8 - Fields and particles observations of the Earth's magnetosphere which will be taken over a period of 28 days. Data will be correlated with those taken by other spacecraft such as Ulysses, Geotail, IMP-8 and Mars Observer. Closest approach to Earth over the South Atlantic at an altitude of 304 km (189 miles). Obtain multispectral SSI images of the Andes mountain range shortly after closest approach. This area has been extensively studied by Earth satellites which provides excellent "ground truth" comparisons for the Galileo instruments. Evaluate low light level imaging of the SSI camera by observing the city lights on Hawaii before dawn. Also observed later in the day will be the city lights, possible volcanic eruptions, and lightning from tropical storms over southeast Asia and Indonesia before dawn. Detected and characterize the polar stratospheric clouds over the Antarctic using the NIMS (Near Infrared Mapping Spectrometer). These clouds are catalysts for the ozone destruction and will be monitored for changes from the Galileo observations made in 1990. Acquire SSI coverage of as much as possible of the land area of the Earth. This will go on for 48 hours and the images will be assembed to form a time-lapse zoom movie of the receding Earth. Dec 9 - GOPEX, an experiment to demonstrate the capability of a deep space probe to receive and distinguish laser signal from Earth. A laser will be pulsed at Galileo from the Table Mountain Observatory near Los Angeles and from the Starfire Optical Range in New Mexico, and the SSI camera will be shuttered while slewing across the Earth resulting in a series of illuminated dots in the image. Continue acquiring SSI images for the zoom movie. Dec 10 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Continue acquiring SSI images for the zoom movie. Observe Asteroid Toutatis 4179 using the EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer) instrument. Dec 11 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Dec 12 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Perihelion. Galileo reachest the closest point to the Sun during this flyby at 0.98 AU. Dec 14 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Dec 15 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Dec 16 - Continue GOPEX experiment. Obtain periodic 3-filter SSI coverage of the Earth and Moon during conjunction period, to produce color time-lapse movie sequence. These images will be taken over a 14 hour period. SSI Image Summary: No. of Images Moon (multi-spectral) 1067 Earth (multi-spectral) 3594 Conjunction Movie (3-color) 168 GOPEX (Green filter) 160 Navigation Images 102 Calibration Images 1722 ----- Total 6813 ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating: |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | space, dinosaurs and ghosts. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 03:17:29 GMT From: Adrian Hassall Lewis Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions Newsgroups: sci.space gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <1992Dec2.171026.22373@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes: >> >>The propellant in modern firearms does not need oxygen from the air to work, >>the oxidizer is built in. Oxygen from the air is negligible in helping >>to fire a gun. >> >>However, having said that, I read that black powder (the old style gunpowder, >>not used in most modern firearms) will not ignite in a vacuum, NOT because >>it needs the oxygen from the air (it is built in), but because it needs the >>pressure. It works just fine in an atmosphere of argon or any other inert gas. >Black powder will ignite just fine in vacuum. It generates it's own >pressure in the confines of a cartridge or muzzleloading firearm to >accelerate the burn rate to sufficient levels to generate the 50,000 >PSI working pressure of a firearm. >Black powder, unlike smokeless powder, can explode when unconfined. >It's rated as an explosive while smokeless powder is rated as a >combustible solid. It may be that *unconfined* black powder would >not explode in vacuum and instead just burn vigorously, as it often >does down here in atmosphere when spread out enough. But it would >certainly work as advertised in the confined space of a firearm. >There's a feedback mechanism at work with burning generating gases >that increase pressure which then increases burn rate which generates >more gases, etc. Pressure stops increasing when the projectile moves >fast enough to increase chamber volume faster than burning generates >additional gas. >Gary While black powder may burn in vacuum, there are a number of explosives that will not detonate without some atmosphere. Some of the primary explosives show this behavior. Thus your main charge may be fine, but your detonators fail (unless they are sealed 8^)). Static pressure can be quite important in explosives. For example, it might seem strange, but if ANFO is compacted too much (ie high static pressure) it becomes "dead-pressed" and will not explode, but the very high dynamic pressure of ANFO exploding does the exploding (if you know what I mean). There are a whole bunch of other pressure effects which I won`t go into. ajax ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 92 01:40:59 GMT From: Philip Young Subject: Orbit Question? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: |> Your polar geosyncronous satellite takes out one equatorial geosynchronous |> satellite every 24 hours as it passes over the equator at 24,000 miles |> altitude..... |> |> --- Maximus 2.00 If you have enough muscle to counteract the rebound, you should be able to collect one every 12 hours (probability proportional to satellite density in GEO). -- Philip R. Young Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:08:56 -0500 From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu Subject: Orbit Question? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >>Your polar geosyncronous satellite takes out one equatorial geosynchronous >>satellite every 24 hours as it passes over the equator at 24,000 miles >>altitude..... >> >>--- Maximus 2.00 > >A the odds of collision are low. big space, small satellite theory. >also, you can really avoid the collision by putting giant fuel tanks >on it, and essentially hovering over the poles. it's theoretical >if ridiculous. What about using ion thrusters powered by solar arrays on the satellite? hdgarner@harding.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:14:24 -0500 From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu Subject: Orbit Question? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >hdgarner@acs.harding.edu writes: > >[On the subject of statites (stationary satellites)] > >>Okay I understand what you are saying about the geo sync orbit, but what if the >>body you wanted to remain over one of the poles was able to produce its own >>electricity (i.e. very large solar array) which would be used to power ion >>thrusters to keep it in place? > >Ion thrusters still require fuel their just much more efficient than chemical >rockets. The only system that can stay stationary over long terms is a solar >sail. Nature may permit some neat tricks with magnetodynamic tethers but I >can't think of any that would work in this situation. > >-- >Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu > Ho^3 !=L Okay, I understand what you are saying. What about using the solar array itself as the solar sail and have it so that it could be moved to control how it would move away from the Earth and side to side, etc. Just a thought. hdgarner@harding.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1992 00:29:11 GMT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Philanthropist Targets Science Community in Former Soviet Union with Largest-Ever Private Contribution Newsgroups: sci.chem,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet,sci.bio,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.math,sci.environment,sci.archaeology Here is a press release from the International Science Foundation for the Former Soviet Union. Philanthropist Targets Science Community in Former Soviet Union with Largest-Ever Private Contribution To: National and Foreign desks, Science Writer Contact: Deirdre Cohen or Cynthia Case, 202-223-1300, for the International Science Foundation for the Former Soviet Union WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 -- In an unprecedented private effort, George Soros, the Hungarian-born founder and president of The Soros Foundations will commit $100 million of his personal funds to save science from economic collapse in the republics of the former Soviet Union. The contribution is the largest ever by a private citizen to an international cause. The announcement will be made at a press briefing, to be held on Wednesday, Dec. 9, at the National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C St., N.W., at 11 a.m. Soros will be joined at the press briefing by Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences, and other eminent scientists. Soros will outline the establishment of the International Science Foundation for the former Soviet Union, which will support science in the newly independent states at a time when economic hardship there is seriously affecting scientists and their research activities. The Soros Foundations are a network of private organizations in 18 Central and Eastern European countries, which support educational, cultural and economic restructuring projects in these countries. Soros is also the founder of The Central European University, with campuses in Prague and Budapest. -30- -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 21:28:43 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Rush Limbaugh and the SAUCER PEOPLE Newsgroups: sci.space In pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: >I didn't hear his statement but Mr. Limbaugh, when I listened >to him many years in the past, frequently engaged in satire. Unfortunately, there is a small group of subtly brain-damaged individuals who are unable to recognize satire, or any other form of humor, unless it is followed by three symobols: :-) A small group compared to the world as a whole, that is. Although people suffering from this incurable condition, known as smiley- face addiction, make up less than 1% of the population as a whole, almost every one of them is on the Internet, where they make up over 90% of the users. (No, dammit I will not put a smiley face here and feed their addiction.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 21:21:14 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax! Newsgroups: sci.space In kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: > I've seen his late night TV show. He's a sensationalist media guy, >not a serious reporter or anything. Note the 'radio personality' title >you give him rather than 'journalist'. He certainly doesn't know >anything about astronomy So, exactly how does that separate him from being a "journalist?" ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 92 20:48:51 GMT From: "Mr. C. Brown" Subject: Satellite Tracking Newsgroups: sci.space Traksat can be found on micros.hensa.ac.uk Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 92 11:58:08 +1100 From: glenn durden Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors Benito.E.Villanueva@dartmouth.edu (Benito E. Villanueva) writes: > I seem to have caught this debate half way through and I have not seen > the video in question. Is this video available anywhere- everyone else > seems to have seen it? How can I view a copy? > Any info would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks > Steven Villanueva I've seen it. Its a moving point of light. A bit of ice. IMHO, find something more useful to get your hands on. ......................................................... glenn durden alfa@csource.oz.au Unique Computing Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia The opinions expressed above are that of the author only. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:50:55 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1992Dec5.165219.18302@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Or a 747???? I don't think so. I believe that spacecraft have to push >the envelope a lot harder than an airliner just to achieve orbit. >Otherwise, lets just fit a big oxygen tank to a 747 and forget all >this high tech stuff. Okay, a 747 doesn't have the thrust-to-weight ratio of a spacecraft. But the F-15 does, and it has a pretty good safety record (an excellent safety record for a fighter). Your assumption that "high thrust-to- weight ratio" means flying dangerously close to the edge of the envelope does not hold up. The flight envelope is not a rigid domain in which all aircraft operate. Every aircraft has its own envelope, determined by its design specs. An SSTO in operational service would not push the edge of its envelope any more than a 747 does. >Look, I'm not trying to be dense here, but in circuit design we know >that the more parts you have in a circuit, and the harder you push >them, the more likely you'll have a failure. So you try to simplify, >and beef up what remains to stand the maximum expected stress. Well, obviously, then, you don't know anything fault-tolerant circuits, which increase the number of parts in order to reduce the probability of a failure. Aircraft engineers were designing fault-tolerant and fail-safe systems before anyone even heard of electronic engineers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 03:41:02 GMT From: Hugh Emberson Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:01:56 GMT, sawdey@mckinley.ee.umn.edu (Aaron Sawdey) said: Aaron> In <1992Dec7.194132.19219@wuecl.wustl.edu> gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_) writes: Aaron> Actually, the difference in mass is significant. A formula 1 engine Aaron> would fit into the engine bay of my Honda CRX -- I think they're Aaron> usually about 1.5 liters displacement with LOTS of turbocharging -- They used to be 1.5 litres and turbocharged or 3 litres and naturally aspirated, but now they are 3.5 litres and naturally aspirated. Hugh -- Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 15:52:27 CST From: slack Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > > Pardon the odd question, but is there a recording of the "Voyager Record" > available? > I've always been interested in exactly what was recorded on it. > > Simon Hello Simon! There is a CD-ROM out called "Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record" from Warner New Media. Check with your local Software ETC store.....Saw it in a flyer from them....Also, there might be a phono record out with the audio portions on it, if memory serves correctly....Don't know where to go for it though..... -=D.E.Brown=- ? -- slack@wuntvor.pillar.com (slack) The Eternal Apprentice BBS, Norman, OK -- +1 405 447 3772 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 13:12:20 EET From: @fuug.fi:flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube x554) Subject: YOU can do real cosmonaut training >From: George Hastings > > The trip in February, 1993 will fly from the U.S.A. to > Helsinki, Finland. The trip from Helsinki to Moscow will be > via the Russian national airline, AEROFLOT. Experienced borderhoppers say that Finnair is a better idea, unless you happen to like snarly stewardesses, and the patterns formed by the frost on the inside surface of your window .. /fred :: baube@optiplan.fi ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 526 ------------------------------