Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:00:15 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #584 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 23 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 584 Today's Topics: 7-for-1 study (was Re: Justification for the Space Program) Aurora (2 msgs) Biosphere 2 update Breeder reactors (2 msgs) Earthquake Filmed from Space I need some help! Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs) LEI financing Mnemonics MOL (and Almaz) Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (3 msgs) Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran? 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: 22 Dec 92 04:30:37 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: 7-for-1 study (was Re: Justification for the Space Program) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec22.024127.8990@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes: > >>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in >>> space spin offs. >> > If this is the study I am thinking of, it used the methodology of > simply assuming that spending by NASA on R&D was as productive as > private industrial R&D. No attempt was made to actually identify the > spinoffs, or judge NASA's contribution to them. The more recent > German study showing that space R&D is less effective at creating > spinoffs than private R&D (as judged by patent citations) would tend > to discredit this. > > I don't recall who did the study, but it got mentioned in this > newsgroup some years ago... anyone remember? The recent "seven-dollar" study (about 4 years old now) was done by Chapman and Associates under contract to NASA. Goldin cited it in his talk at the Indianapolis town meeting. I have a copy somewhere among my effects, but I haven't read it. :-( A summary of the German study *was* posted to sci.space in the past couple of months. Perhaps some enthusiastic archive jockey can retrieve it. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:51:55 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora In answer to John Roberts (Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST): >I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's >nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different >connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"? Yes, "chasser" means "to hunt", and it is very agressive. What we call an "avion de chasse" is what you call a "fighter". According to the dictionary, "to chase" seems indeed a little less agressive, and may be translated by "chasser" but also by "poursuivre" (= "to pursue"), so there is some ambiguity. However, a F-16 is a fighter, and I still find a little disturbing that US fighters chase US "deep black" planes. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 15:47:36 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Aurora Newsgroups: sci.space On 22 Dec 92 14:54:42 GMT, PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR said: JP> In answer to John Roberts (Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST): >I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's >nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different >connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"? JP> Yes, "chasser" means "to hunt", and it is very agressive. What we JP> call an "avion de chasse" is what you call a "fighter". According JP> to the dictionary, "to chase" seems indeed a little less agressive, JP> and may be translated by "chasser" but also by "poursuivre" (= "to JP> pursue"), so there is some ambiguity. JP> However, a F-16 is a fighter, and I still find a little disturbing JP> that US fighters chase US "deep black" planes. Traditionally, we have always chased high, fast aircraft with high-performance aircraft (fighters). Here at Dryden, we've used F-104s, T-38s, F-18s, F-100s, T-33s, and other high-performance aircraft. High-performance aircraft have the best flight envelope to stay with the test plane if it's got any kind of envelope at all. Plus, they're mature technology, so your chase won't break and cancel the mission. (Well, not often--we had a problem yesterday with the second flight of the HARV, when the chase F-18 had a problem on the ramp and the HARV had to hold until they got the chase fixed, but it only took twenty minutes or so.) After all, the French chased Concorde with Mirages. I don't understand why you find this "disturbing". The chase planes don't carry missiles or anything; they just fly safety chase. They're not there to shoot down the test airplane or launch missiles at traffic. They're just there if there's a problem. They take the radio calls, watch the position in the restricted area, look for traffic, and keep an eye on the test plane for things like leaks. We had a USAF chase pilot in an F-4 catch a hydraulic leak in the AFTI/F-111 very early. The AFTI/F-111 RTBed immediately and ran out of hydraulic pressure on the taxiway; we may well have lost the test aircraft if chase hadn't noticed the thin stream of fluid\ coming off the plane. Perhaps you're confused by the fact that high-performance aircraft are designated as fighters? Many of these aircraft are dedicated to the chase role; the USAF's T-38 pacers (used for airspeed and altitude calibrations) are a good example. What were you planning on chasing a supersonic/hypersonic plane with? A Cessna 172? We chased our hypersonic airplane, the X-15, with F-104s. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:12 GMT From: Nathaniel Polish Subject: Biosphere 2 update Newsgroups: sci.space I realize that there has been much debate concerning the seriousness of the science of Biosphere 2. However the problems posed are still fascinating. If indeed this is to be viewed as a prototype space colony then I have a problem with the review just posted from a crewmember. There was much made of the wide variation in sunlight causing variation of CO2 uptake by plants. Further we have all seen discussions of the somewhat uncomfortable drop in O2 level. I would presume that any space colony would have a reasonably abundant source of electric power (nuke or solor collectors). This renders the issue of variable sunlight level moot as light is one thing that we can easily create. Also, one would not expect the sunlight levels in Tuscon to be available on other planets. So the real question is: to what extent are the questions asked and circumstances created intended as a space colony prototype? Obviously, a Biosphere 2 crewmember would be the ideal respondant. Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:29:34 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Breeder reactors Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: > One concern I've heard concerning at least some of the breeder cycles is that > the fuel produced is more easily converted to bomb-grade material than is the > U238-U235 mix traditionally used in commercial reactors. At the moment, it's > difficult to guarantee that nobody can steal or divert a sufficient quantity > of such a material (if it's widely used) to cause trouble. I believe I've > heard proposals such as deliberately contaminating the fuel with high-level > waste to make it too dangerous for thieves to handle. Do you have any more > information on this aspect? And are there designs where the breeder itself > consumes the fuel it generates? (I've redirected followups to sci.energy.) Let me preface this by observing that in a world where countries are getting richer and more productive, the only long term way to keep countries from making bombs is to have them not want to make bombs. This is true even if our energy sources are non-nuclear. Nuclear terrorism, I think, is overrated; chemical terrorism is much easier, after all, and as deadly, but has not yet occured. There are nuclear fuel cycles that make the fuel less easily diverted (although none is completely safe.) The pyrometallurgical process for reprocessing spent fuel developed at ANL leaves the reprocessed actinides contaminated with sufficient high level waste to make diverting them difficult. This process is pretty simple (just 3 or 4 basic steps) and could be done on-site. Thorium-based cycles would make U-233. This could be spiked with U-232, which would make the fuel a fairly strong gamma emitter. This would make its diversion difficult and easily detectable. Since this discussion was in the context of space resources, do remember that to make a significant impact on terrestrial resource demands, space industry would involve the manipulation of billions of tons of material per year. A 60,000 ton object dropped on the earth hits with a yield of at least a megaton. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 16:07:16 GMT From: Jim Mann Subject: Breeder reactors Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: > How much does uranium sufficiently enriched for use in commercial reactors > cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium cost?) I'd think it should be free to anyone wanting to haul it away (though the governement probably doesn't treat it that way). If you drive by any of the three government gaseous diffusion plants, you'll see large cylinder after large cylinder of depleted uranium piled up. Most of this stuff is just a storage problem for the plants. You'd think that if someone was actually going to use it to generate electricity, they'd be willing to just give it away. -- Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:50:07 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Earthquake Filmed from Space Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes In article <1992Dec22.000927.13874@netcom.com> alden@netcom.com (Andrew L. Alden) writes: >baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >: After precisely lining up enlarged portions of the images on >: a computer display, Crippen flickered between the two and >: observed the differing ground motions across each of the faults. >: He repeated this process with other parts of the images taken of >: several different sites along the faults, and in some cases, he >: observed newly formed cracks in the fault zones. > >I watched his display both at the press conference and later downstairs, >and it was quite striking. The SPOT images are 10 m per pixel, the best >unclassified images you can get, yet even so, movements that were >measured on the ground at a meter or so were clearly visible. This is >yet another argument for declassifying space photos made by military >satellites, which are of as good quality looking down as the Hubble >Space Telescope's are looking up. > >The flicker technique is used by astronomers to detect moving objects >against the backdrop of the fixed stars. The beauty of Crippen's work >is that he could get nearly the same precision using images with less >precise controls--a satellite in orbits a year apart over the same place >on the ground. > >His work will pay off in similar situations where there is poor ground >control, like central Asia. How often is there going to be a quake with multi-meter offsets in the desert? Perhaps this techniques may help measure slower, aseismic deformation. Many miles from the fault the tectonic plates are moving a couple inches a year while the fault itself is locked in some places. Perhaps the photo technique will show the deformation pattern of a decade or so. Radar inferometry has been used to measure ground motions for a few years. Radar is not as sensitive to weather as light. It has seen the spring time swelling of agricultural fields in central California and the changes in the size of Mt. Etna. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:17:07 +0100 From: nagyba%HUBME51.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Subject: I need some help! Hi guys! Sorry to disturb you, but i have a problem. I would like to know the "adress" of the Technical University of Aachen. I write to you because the person i want to find works on space research. Please send the answer to my personnal "adress"(nagyba@hubme51.bitnet) because i don't often read this digest. Thank's for all and i wish for all of you a merry x'mas and a happy new year! Nagy Balazs(dave) :-) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 14:31:59 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec22.020021.7541@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <21DEC199218250184@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>In article <1992Dec21.163942.17983@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes... > > >of technologies as justifications for the program. A serious considered look > >at the problems of pollution, population, and wealth generation from a > >systems perspective clearly show the advantage of increasing the resource > >base upon which mankind must draw for survival and prosperity. > >Blah, blah, blah. This is all vacuous mouthings. Please present >*specific* things which we can judge. > > > must press forward without Von Braun. Your arguments within the narrow > > context of your statements may by true. What you are forgetting is > > that there is much more to this world than your perspective and your > > view. > >I'm willing to be convinced by facts. Just what convinced you, if >not facts? > Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts. We'd still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry. Humans seem to need to expand to keep a society vibrant. We're starting to run out of physical and psychic room to expand on Earth. Now, one could either make more room here (nuking back into the Middle Ages was the preferred technique up until recently) or look for more room elsewhere. Frontiersmen have never been a large fraction of the population, but I submit that they have an impact on society out of proportion with their number. So, no numbers, no proof, just another opinion why we as a whole should fund the fortunate few who get to go out and jump off the "edge". -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:02:12 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space In article ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com writes: > One part of your discussion disturbs me. Money can be accumulated, and > horded, and stolen. However, money must be MADE first. I'm not a ... > As to what this has to do with the justification of space, I would say that > opportunities to MAKE money are abundant in space if the technology and > resources are put to good use. This, in turn, increases the cumulative > wealth of the planet. Yes, that's right. The problem is that when space is actually compared with more mundane ways of creating wealth on earth, it doesn't look all that good. Sure, there are some niches, like communications (soon to face strong competition from fiber optics) and position location. But schemes for energy or material mined in space are just too expensive, speculative, poorly justified and long term for an investor to take seriously. More generally, raw materials costs are a rather small and shrinking fraction of GNP. Focusing on them is to ignore the real driver of competitive advantage, productivity. We don't make better and cheaper cars or computers by cramming more steel and coal into the factory; we do it by being smarter in how we design and manufacture them. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:02:34 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec22.143159.4832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts. We'd >still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and >tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry. Humans seem >to need to expand to keep a society vibrant. We're starting to run >out of physical and psychic room to expand on Earth. Now, one could >either make more room here (nuking back into the Middle Ages was the >preferred technique up until recently) or look for more room >elsewhere. >Frontiersmen have never been a large fraction of the >population, but I submit that they have an impact on society out of >proportion with their number. So, no numbers, no proof, just another >opinion why we as a whole should fund the fortunate few who get to go >out and jump off the "edge". Uh, Brad, this is all well and good, but Wingo is running around saying space will be the savior of all mankind and civilization as we know it. He's also doing some Sagan-esque doomsaying which works nice to sell Carl billions and billions of books, but does little in the way of providing actual, quantifyable (key word) ways of demonstrating the planet is going to s**t and SPACE, the FINAL FRONTIER is the only way to save it. When you cut past all the rhetorical garbage, a series of Malthusian doomsayers have continued to set a deadline on when humankind and the planet are going to break down, and every friggin' 20 years they have to go back, rewrite their models and move the goalposts (all the while, collecting plenty of money as they continue to drive their internal combustion engine cars, wear synthetic fibers, and find new ways to get onto TV). We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY which Dennis insists IS necessary. Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it. We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and off the planet. I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 08:38:08 GMT From: Ross Borden Subject: LEI financing Newsgroups: sci.space I read the information that LEI has posted at ames. Very interesting stuff. It's a worthwhile idea and should be supported. However, I have a problem with funding by donation. I would be willing to donate ~$100. But, if I had a reasonable expectation of getting my money back, I would be willing to invest several $1000. I wouldn't be greedy about it either. I would be satisfied to get the principle back at the end of the mission. Call it a 3-4 year no interest loan. I suspect that there would be many other space enthusiasts who would be willing to 'loan' sizable pieces of change on this basis. Of course, I realize that making a mission like this even a break-even proposition is not easy. How much thought has gone into marketing the resource map that will be produced? Could you talk NASA into buying the whole thing for ,say, $20M ? (I recall a proposed bill called something like "Lunar Resources Information Purchasing Act" by which the US government would require NASA to purchase the first available lunar resource map. What happened to it? Did it die, or is there still a chance of passing it?) How about copyrighting the map and selling copies to universities, governments etc. for $500. (Hmmmm... $16,000,000/$500 = 32,000. Well, maybe.) Or even a student rate of $50 ;-) How about selling exclusive information from small areas to 'prospectors'? (Yeah, you'd need pretty far-sighted prospectors.) The problem is the fundamental obstacle to getting all of us out there, where we belong: not launch costs, or new technology, but making it *pay* Until it does, we're stuck here. _______________________________________________________________________________ | .sig? I don't need no stinking .sig! | | rborden@ra.uvic.ca | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 14:39:47 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Mnemonics Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,sci.space bill nelson (billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com) wrote: > jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes: > : In article <1992Dec21.211902.4322@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes: > > : >: or near miss in about 4 billion years. Working backwards they should also > : >: have collided about 2 billion years ago (c. 1/2 the estimated age of the > : >: solar system). Some people speculate that Pluto is an asteroid that was > : >: captured by Neptune at this time. > : > > : >Yeah - some people do make such a speculation. The same ones who ignore the > : >fact that Pluto has a moon. Also, the same people ignore the fact that none > : >of the asteroids travel anywhere close to that far out. They are pretty much > : >confined between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. > : > : Sorry, Bill, but there are many planetoids and asteroids that orbit beyond > : the orbit of Jupiter. One such is a minor planet called Chiron. There > : are quite a few others as well. > > Note that I said "pretty much". > > There certainly are some that travel outside the orbit of Jupiter - as well > as inside the orbit of the Earth. However, I know of none that travel outside > the orbit of Saturn, much less any of the planets further out. > > Bill Well, stay tuned. Object 1992QB1 is reckoned to be a good candidate for a distant (40-50 A.U.) minor planet and may be the first of many discovered at that distance. -- ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 1992 15:09:48 GMT From: "Michael K. Heney" Subject: MOL (and Almaz) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec18.111817.24990@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes: > >A mockup station (really just empty Titan tankage somewhat similar in >size to a real station) and the first test capsule (which I believe >was the refitted Gemini 2 capsule (with the new hatch in the heatshield) >were launched around 1970. I *think* it was actually the Gemini 3 capsule that was used for this. I remember hearing it touted as "the first reuse of a manned spacecraft" or something to that effect. Of course, I was only about 12 at the time ... -- Mike Heney | Senior Systems Analyst and | Reach for the mheney@access.digex.com | Space Activist / Entrepreneur | Stars, eh? Kensington, MD (near DC) | * Will Work for Money * | ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 16:11:11 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec17.163212.20944@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom >>space stations >without shuttle, you might not have ONE Freedom space station. Nonsense. The Russians have no problems building space stations without their Shuttle. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:15 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <71877@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: >>NASA spends over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight. I think >>you've indulged in some creative accounting. > The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if > memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter, amortization of Shuttle development costs, and a host of other costs. Adding those in puts the cost at well over a billion per flight. Hell, interest costs on development alone adds over a quarter billion per flight (BTW, this interest is not a sunk cost since it is part of the national debt and we are paying for it even now). >You have done the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say. No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW, if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be thrown in jail for fraud. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 16:21:52 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle . . .) Newsgroups: sci.space In article MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes: >Wind tunnel test results and CFD simulations are usually sufficient for >design of experimental flight vehicles. Therefore the question remains: >If lack of *flight-test* data is seen as the long pole in the tent >(holding things up), why isn't it being flown on the admittedly >experimental DC-X (and DC-Y)? DC-Y is a proof of concept. The first goal must me to achieve reusable flight with rapid turnaround and some payload (even if only a pound). After that is achieved, we will have an excellent testbed for doing research on aerospike nozzles, new materials, and everything else. This will allow us to continuously improve the system. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:20:45 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Only the US and the former USSR? I think ESA, ISAS, NASDA, and Great >Wall, Inc. might disagree with you. They might also point out that >Israel and India have launched satellites on multiple occasions, and >ask you how you define "precision orbit." France, Britain, and Italy >are kind of retired from the launch business, but they are ESA >partners. Brazil is coming up fast as a contender here. Bill, there's a difference between "demonstration capability" and "cocked and loaded." ESA is not in the business of launching ASATs. I'll spot the French the benefit of the doubt, because they have an in-house solids capability and cuz they're the French. I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:24:36 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec18.011309.12639@bby.com.au> gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: >Given that the thing can fly automatically, why add pilots? For the exact same reason airliners (which can also fly automatically) have pilots: to deal with emergency situations. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 584 ------------------------------