Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 05:05:52 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #422 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 6 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 422 Today's Topics: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Another Kuiper Object Found? Area Rule (was Re: Space Research Spin Off) Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Degrees vs. Experience lie low netters! UFO's want you! Luddites in space Mars Observer Update - 04/05/93 NORAD (tediously long) nuclear waste (2 msgs) Prefab Space Station? Space Digest V16 #401 Space Research Spin Off Space Research Spinoffs TOPEX Observes Giant Waves from Storm of the Century 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: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 16:05:50 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Newsgroups: sci.space In <3_713_6352bbaa1ea@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) writes: >Why can't the government just be a tennant? Private commercial concerns >could just build a space station system and charge rent to the government >financed researchers wanting to use it. I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately current spending rules don't permit it to be workable. For this to work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk enough to make this attractive to a private firm. Since they generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the government can't provide such a tenant guarantee. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 1993 11:31 PST From: SCOTT I CHASE Subject: Another Kuiper Object Found? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1piafeINNri5@emx.cc.utexas.edu>, anita@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Anita L. Cochran) writes... >The orbit for 1992QB1 is being improved and indeed seems to be a Kuiper >object. The discovery orbit for 1993FW is still too preliminary to know for >sure. Thanks, Anita, for that lucid explanation, most of which I have deleted to save bandwidth. My question is a subjective one - I am interested in your opinion, as a worker in this field. How many objects with "Kuiper Belt compatible" orbits actually make a "Kuiper Belt"? I guess I mean this in two senses: (1) How many would have to be clearly identified before you and other experts would move the Kuiper Belt from "speculative" to "verified", and (2) in the long run, how many objects would you expect at detectable magnitude, if the Kuiper Belt is the sole source of all of comets for which it was hypothesized to be the origin? -Scott -------------------- Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell, SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having been a single cell so long ago myself that I have no memory at all of that stage of my life." - Lewis Thomas ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 13:36:19 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Area Rule (was Re: Space Research Spin Off) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1ppm7j$ip@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >>Winglets. Area ruling. Digital fly by wire. Ride smoothing. > > I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing. > NASA guys developed the rule, but no-one knew if it worked > until Boeing built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111????? No, Convair. (I love arguing over historical trivia... ) The story all young airplane buffs learn is that the Convair XF-92, a delta-wing experimental fighter for the Air Force, couldn't break Mach 1 because its cross section increased too fast as you went from front to back. Once somebody figured this out they designed the similar-looking F-102 with a Coke-bottle fuselage, so as the wings got wider, the fuselage got narrower and the total area grew only slowly. Other supersonic planes in the "Century series" used this trick as well (F-105, F-106). Convair wound up as part of General Dynamics. No real relevance to spaceflight, except that you gotta get through Mach 1 on your way to orbit. I appreciate Mary's sharp reminder that there are two "A's" in "NASA;" I think Mr. Clinton and Mr. Goldin do too. Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "Captain's Log, Stardate 46682.4. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | The *Enterprise* is docked at the Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | Remlar Array, where it will undergo Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | a routine procedure to eliminate SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | accumulated baryon particles." | Hmm, my apartment needs this too. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 1993 18:04 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be temporarily in orbit around Jupiter. The comet had apparently made a close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the comet. Attempts to determine the comet's orbit has been complicated by the near impossibility of measuring the comet's center of mass. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 15:53:43 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Degrees vs. Experience >>>Famous last words. I'm curious, though, Pat. How would you feel if >>>your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school >>>because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control >>>software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by >>>someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software >>>engineering because they "already knew the field"? >> There's nothing so unreal about this. Possession of a piece of paper >>does not guarantee competence. After all when I started >>doing software there was no such thing as a computer science course. >While a hunk of sheepskin certainly is no guarantee of competence, the >lack of one in a complex field is potentially an indicator of some >holes in the requisite underlying knowledge. No kidding! We really got burned once by our family economist! We were going to sue him, but our checkbook was all out of whack by then, so we bounced the check on the lawyer...got real ugly before we straightened it all out :-) Seriously, though, can economics be fairly compared to medicine? What does an economist do, besides teach economics? Sounds like progfessional inbreeding. When you get right down to it, what is there in economics besides supply, demand, public goods and, what appears to dominate all upper-level classes in economics; intervention by people that think they know better? I took a few classes in econ, and decided if I wanted to go further, that I'd best spend my time learning tax-law, where at least I could get a job in my field after I graduated. Thank God I *didn't* want to go further. I don't need an economist to balance my checkbook, decide what product is cheaper, pick a good job, or any of the things that make up economics, so it seems lambasting someone for talking economics without a degree is like lambasting someone for gossipping without a psych degree. >> I think you'd be amazed (particularly in software) at the number of >>truly competent people who've never bothered with degrees, because they >>were too busy doing real work :-) >Well, no, I don't think I would. I got a degree in that, too, and I >frankly find the number of not so competenet people with credentials a >lot more surprising than I do competence in people without them. Kind >of leaves me wondering what some schools are teaching these days. >However, unless they spent a lot of time learning a lot of things >people without that academic background are going to be missing some >of the underpinnings, no matter how good they might be at developing >specific applications. Sort of the difference between being able to >build a house and being able to design one and being able to use those >same skills to design a ship. Again, do economics and computer science really compare? I can install and use software on most computers, but I can't design and simulate an operating system using COBOL on a Commodore 64 :-) My use of computers does require objects and knowledge that I can only get from others, usually who havea degree in the field. Now consider the case in economics: I can balance a checkbook (I don't, but I can. I don't sweat it though, since economists advise congress :-) buy products, pay my taxes, usually finding more ways to increase my refund than my friends, who hate the hassle more, and get a job. If you include garage sales and swap meets, I really function quite well in the world of economics without a degree, or the skills or people that a degree in economics represents. What does an economist have to offer to a reasonably intelligent person that they can't learn without a degree? Or, what do economists offer anyone, that they can't get from one of those debt-consolidation firms? >Of course, there are also folks to whom reasonable software >engineering practices come 'natural' as the result of the application >of good sense and experience. However, at the bottom line, economics >ain't programming. Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it >works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work. Well, that's just it, economists, unlike CPScientists, Doctors, and several other fields (not including cosmologists, of course :-) can't agree on how their field works, even though just-plain-folks usually do. So what value an economist or his degree? Or do you mean, the way things work are how the gov decides, and, since economists advise Congress, the IRS, the Prez, and anyone else who will listen, how an economist thinks is how economies run? (i.e., badly :-) In other words, how much of the reality that is 'economic events' consists of things that can only be understood by economists, and how much of it is affected, and made unintelliglble-to-anyone, by economists? -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:18:36 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you! Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In <1phunj$h3a@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1APR199315164174@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>Maybe pat is an agent? :-) >I am exposed. Drat! Again? How many times do I have to talk to you about exposing yourself in public, Pat? Boy, you dress him up, you take him out, and look what he does. ;-) >Fred and I were maintaining a smokescreen:-) to cover up the >disapearrance of Dave, Henry and alan. Just ignore that exposed man behind the smokescreen . . . ["I AM THE GREAT OZ . . . "] [:-);-);-) -- for the smiley-impaired] -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:33:49 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Luddites in space Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In <19930405.071610.832@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes: >In <1993Apr2.165052.174@mksol.dseg.ti.com> fred j mccall 575-3539 writes: >>However, at the bottom line, economics >>ain't programming. Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it >>works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work. > No kidding :-) .Economics is the one field is which you can be >totally and consistently wrong in every prediction you make, and still >be regarded as a serious scholar. Yes. Someone of relative renown as an economist originally made this statement, as I recall (but his name escapes me). >It doesn't make a lot of sense to >apply the same criteria for competence as for a mature and >reasonably well understood field. True, perhaps, but neither does it make sense to apply no criteria at all and let anyone who can tie their shoes consider their opinion to be as well-founded as someone who actually knows something about the subject. Once we get away from sticks and rocks, intuition often proves to be wrong in the real world. [And yes, I've heard all the economist jokes.] If all the ecomomists in the world were laid end to end . . . Punchline #1: they would all point in different directions. Punchline #2: they wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 1993 17:27 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/05/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT April 5, 1993 10:00 AM PDT Flight Sequence C8 is active, the Spacecraft subsystems and instrument payload performing well in Array Normal Spin and outer cruise configuration, with uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 K Engineering data rate. Continuous coverage in support of the Gravity Wave Experiment is being provided by the Deep Space Network. Spacecraft activity is minimal through completion of the Gravity Wave Experiment next week. The Flight Team is conducting an "Anomalous Mars Orbit Insertion" training rehearsal during this period. Verification Test Laboratory testing of Flight Software Build 8.0 began on Tuesday, March 23 and is scheduled to complete today. Work is in progress on the Preliminary T1 Flight Sequence, which contains the Mars Orbit Insertion maneuver. A Preliminary T1 Sequence approval meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 19. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 17:17:12 GMT From: "CONTRACTOR Steven G. Berman" Subject: NORAD (tediously long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr1.051348.12617@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes: >In article <1993Apr1.030230.1@vax1.tcd.ie> apryan@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >>Does anyone have a telephone no. for NORAD? (Is it called Space >>Command now?). I need to urgently check if there have been any >>re-entries in last 2 days! Any e-mail addresses would also be >>of use! > >Sorry to burst your bubble, but those numbers are not going to be had by >anyone but the government and government contractors. Can't you reach Peterson AFB in Colorado Springs and get through to Space Command, or Los Angeles AFS? Both have listed phone #'s (DSN prefixes 692 and 833 respectively). Both are connected to Internet (DDN), and both have personnel who can (and do) contact the Mountain with such routine stuff. > >The Mountain is not connected to the Internet, so email addresses are not >going to be found. > I really find it hard to believe that Cheyenne Mountain is not on the Internet (DDN). I did look at the MILNET map in "The Matrix" and found nodes LOWRY, PETER, and DENVR--no CHCHEYEN. Never having been to "The Mountain," I guess I can't imagine the security there. In any case, I figure that Space Command would not release any re-entry data until it's been declassified, and I _know_ it's all classified from the minute it's collected by the NORAD computers. BTW, Lt "Fuzzy", are you active-duty, academic leave, or reserve? Do you work for Space Command? * The opinions expressed here are not NOT *NOT* representative of Century * * Technologies, Inc., the US Government, or the Civilized World. * /==========================================================================\ | Steve Berman | | |\\. sberman@wrdis01.robins.af.mil WR-ALC/LKS | | |#\ ^\. Robins AFB, GA | | |##\ ^\ | | |###>/////> CENTECH JOINT STARS | | |##////// Century Technologies, Inc. Depot Support | | |#//// | | |// (912) 926-1237 | | | \==========================================================================/ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 15:38:08 GMT From: William Reiken Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > > The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being > built is that there isn't any reason to do so. Natural uranium is > still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks > technically reasonable. > November/December, 1987 page 21 - "Science and Technology in Japan". Seawater Uranium Recovery Experiment "The ground uranium reserves are estimated at about 3.6 million tons, and it is anticipated that the demand and supply balance will collapse by the end of the 20th century. In Japan, a resources poor country, technological development are now under way to economically collect uranium dissolved in seawater. The total quanity of uranium dissolved in seawater is estimated to be about 4.6 billion tons, a huge amount when compared with ground uranium reserves......." Will... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:16:34 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <841@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes: > So anyone want to comment on what the world will look like > without oil? How would this effect NASA technology that currently > uses oil-based product for spaceship parts? Briefly, there is nothing in oil that cannot be replaced with nonfossil fuel sources, at some cost. Another source of energy is needed, but there are several options there. Importing hydrocarbons from elsewhere in the solar system is clearly not a long-term viable solution (CO2 would build up too much.) Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:04:35 GMT From: tomas o munoz Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pl3f8$ivc@iris.mbvlab.wpafb.af.mil>, carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil (Andy Carol) writes: |> |> Since one of the largest expenses of Freedom will be the many trips |> required to get the pieces up, and the many EVAs required to put |> the whole thing together, why do they not consider a lesson from |> SkyLab? |> |> Build a prefab station module similar to a shuttle in size and design |> except it will never return to Earth and will not be manned at launch. |> Because it is never going to land, it does not need wings, landing |> gear, most avionics etc. It will be, in effect, a module with 3 large |> shuttle engines mounted under it which will only get one use. It would |> also need OMS engines etc. The 'one-launch' idea may also allow savings |> with structure design. I don't know that you guys are aware, but this idea is being considered under the current redesign/restructure. It's called the singled launch space station option, or more intimately "THE CAN". Looking at preliminary cartoons of the launch configuration, it sure looks alot like the Shuttle-C. This is one of three options being considered with JSC taking the lead on the can option. LaRC is looking at a baseline derivative and MSFC is looking at a baseline derivative which emphasizes modules. Anyway, this can would be launch at 51 deg [or 28.5 deg] in one shot with perhaps a couple of shuttle flights to outfit some stuff. Dimensions would be 23 ft by 64 ft with seven compartments and a permanent crew of three. Russian hardware would be used for the ACRV. |> |> A shuttle could be used to ferry the crew up. Emergency return would |> still be difficult (like with Freedom), maybe we could 'buy' a Russion |> vehicle. Under a nose-shroud (aerodynamics at launch) there could be |> a docking ring, designed to mate with an interconnect module carried |> up in a shuttle cargo bay. We could add a new section every few years. |> They would mass too much for a shuttle arm to move them, they would use |> remote control thrusters to dock with each other. |> |> There is also a benefit that the entire mass of a shuttle and cargo is |> available to the station at launch for its consumables, labs, etc. |> Normally the mass of the shuttle itself is in a sense 'wasted' on the |> many launches required for Freedom. |> |> I'm sure that a from scratch design would be expensive, but how many |> re-designs does Freedom need? It's going to cost a fortune, and I |> think we are underestimating the difficulty in EVAs being used to |> actually build it. Never mind the safety issue, with the dozens of |> launchs and risky EVAs. |> |> |> Oh well. |> |> --- Andrew carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil or carol@elmendorf-ac2sman.af.mil -- Tom Munoz ================================================================== Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish" ___________ ___ ____ ____ /_________ /| /___/ \ /__ /\ /___/| |___ ___|/ / _ \ /| | \ \/ | | | | | | | | | | | \/ | | | | | | | | | | | |\ /| | | | | | | |_| |/ | | \/ | | | |__|/ \_____/ |__|/ |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov ================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:05:20 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Space Digest V16 #401 Newsgroups: sci.space In 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>Nick sez; >>>>>I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from >>>>>LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on >>>>>the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there. [...] >>Fred replies; >>>>Translation: It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future >>>>to Which You MUST Subscribe. It wants to do silly things like put >>>>*people* in space, and on the moon yet, of all places. And most >>>>importantly to Nick, it seems, it doesn't give work to JPL. >Tom sez; >>>Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some >>>degree. If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done, >>>address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so. >Fred again; >>You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you? >... >Maybe I'd get it if you said what the complaints are about, rather than >doing the same things that you mean to complain about. When you trash >people, how am I supposed to read that as 'trashing people is bad'? Gee, funny that you get it now, then? Deliberate obtuseness, perhaps? >>>Not only >>>do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas >>>on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just >>>baiting, not even part of a debate. >>I have yet to see Nick enter into anything remotely resembling "a >>debate". I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The >>One True Szabo Plan; I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy >>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight >>Nick; I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the >>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo. But debate? BWAAaaahhhaaaa. >I'm glad you can laugh, since your ratio of debate/insult is about the same. Not even close, Tommy, and generally only when I'm dealing with someone like Nick. >>>I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space- >>>based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the >>>reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of >>>the person with a divergent opinion. >>Who said I think they should be, Tommy? Show me a note where I said >>that and I'll eat this terminal. >Fred, I cocluded that you did, since you took issue with it. The fact >that my conclusion was incorrect, i.e. that you were taking issue with >something different, is evidence that your communication style is >confusing. Or evidence that your reading and comprehension style are inadequate. Please quote the 'it' I took issue with. I believe you will see (if you look) that what I was and am taking issue with is Mr Szabo's idea that the manned program should be scrapped until such time as his toaster-based infrastructure is finished. All Hail the Szabo Plan! More deliberate lack of understanding, Tommy? >>>If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that. The way you >>>bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of. >>No, Tommy, the 'bait' is that which elicits the response. *NICK* >>'baits'; I just flame him for being an obnoxious fool. >I don't really care who started it. I read this list to get information >and other's views on the issues to which it was dedicated, not to be >your Mom (He started it! No, he did!) or to hear about why Nick is a very >bad guy. If you think flaming is bad, stop flaming, or at least get to >the point in the first post, instead of explaining yourself all the time. That's nice, Tommy. When you pay me to post to the net you can complain about not getting your money's worth. Perhaps if you weren't (deliberately?) too thick to get the point the first time I wouldn't have to waste time "explaining [myself] all the time"? I think it's neat how all this criticism from you started after your 'fatherly' admonitions to me about how such things should be handled outside Usenet were somewhat rebuffed. Being a little hypocritical, Tommy (to go with the immaturity)? Or is this just the pique of a net.ghod wannabe who got turned down by someone he *thought* was new (and hence could be 'instructed' -- Tommy, I saw you come on the net). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:02:12 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space On 5 Apr 1993 12:20:03 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: Pat> In article Pat> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Winglets. Area ruling. Digital fly by wire. Ride smoothing. Pat> I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing. NASA guys Pat> developed the rule, but no-one knew if it worked until Boeing Pat> built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111????? Nope--the YF-102 flown here at Dryden was the demonstrator for the area rule. Convair built the resulting F-102. Area ruling is only important for going trans/supersonic, something 727s don't do. I don't believe that Boeing has ever built an area-ruled aircraft, although they may have proposed one for their SST. Area ruling makes a really funny-shaped passenger compartment. General Dynamics built the FB-111. -- 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: Mon, 05 Apr 93 15:42:42 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Space Research Spinoffs >Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see.. >Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked I don't know about 10, but I can think of a couple. Fist off would be the global conciousness. It's use or misuses (like ecologically concerned citizens or ecopagans) couldn't be considered NASA's responsiblity, but visual, gut-level proof that we've reached the scale of the planet with the scale of civilization must have some value, since that's really the situation. I don't know if it's a spinoff, since it was intended, but atmospheric undestanding can't be a bad thing. How many lives are saved every year due to good aviation weather reports, let alone disaster-prediction, as happened in Fla. last year? Again, it was inteneded, so it might not count as a spin-off, but how about satellite based communication, like TV, Cellular phones, or Lorans? Then there's Tang. I just can't get enough of that stuff :-) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 02:36:52 GMT From: Kazuo Kimura Subject: TOPEX Observes Giant Waves from Storm of the Century Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology -- 305 つくば市天王台1-1-1筑波大学地球科学研究科 冨田智彦（とみたともひこ） TEL:0298-53-4536 FAX:0298-51-9764 tomita@silkroad.kk.tsukuba.ac.jp ------------------------------ From: Pat Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off Date: 5 Apr 1993 12:20:03 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA Lines: 9 Message-Id: <1ppm7j$ip@access.digex.net> References: <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> <1pnuke$idn@access.digex.net> Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.net Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Winglets. Area ruling. Digital fly by wire. Ride smoothing. I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing. NASA guys developed the rule, but no-one knew if it worked until Boeing built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111????? pat ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 422 ------------------------------