Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 05:16:07 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #429 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 429 Today's Topics: Blow up space station, easy way to do it. (2 msgs) Commercial point of view DC-X Rollout Report FAQs Fred and Tom, ad naseum Mach 25 NASA "Wraps" nuclear waste pushing the envelope Quaint US Archaisms Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5 Space Research Spin Off Sr-71 in propoganda films? White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 15:19:51 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr5.184527.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >This might a real wierd idea or maybe not.. > > >Why musta space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be >confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not >earth, why be limited by earth based ideas?? > Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above: 1. Politics 2. Traditions 3. Congress 4. Beauracrats ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 00:15:16 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr6.151951.12685@sed.stel.com>, bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs) writes: > In article <1993Apr5.184527.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>This might a real wierd idea or maybe not.. >> >> >>Why musta space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be >>confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not >>earth, why be limited by earth based ideas?? >> > Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above: > > > 1. Politics > 2. Traditions > 3. Congress > 4. Beauracrats > I will add commerical concerns. Also public ignorance..OR just ignorance in general... Now that I have stated what might be an easier or cheaper way od things, why not let us discuss it?? Or is it to wierd? radical?? Why not I live in Alaska, I can be radical or different.. Michael Adams (sorry not at home so no funny comments for now) ------------------------------ Date: 04 Apr 93 17:41:50 GMT From: Ralph Buttigieg Subject: Commercial point of view Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: szabo@techbook.com G'day szabo@techbook.com 29 Mar 93 07:28, szabo@techbook.com wrote to All: sc> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo), via Kralizec 3:713/602 sc> Here are some longer-term markets to consider: Here are some more: * Terrestrial illumination from orbiting mirrors. * World enviroment and disaster monitering system. (the Japanese have already developed a plan for this, called WEDOS) Although this may be more of a "public good". * Space tourism. * Energy relay satellites ta Ralph --- GoldED 2.41 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-6797 3:713/6 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 17:03:13 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: DC-X Rollout Report Newsgroups: sci.space In article buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke) writes: McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X ... SSTO research remains cloudy. The SDI Organization -- which paid $60 million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a follow-on vehicle. To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for This is a little peculiar way of putting it, SDIO's budget this year was, what, $3-4 billion? They _could_ fund all of the DC development out of one years budget - of course they do have other irons in the fire ;-) and launcher development is not their primary purpose, but the DC development could as easily be paid for by diverting that money as by diverting the comparable STS ops budget... - oh, and before the flames start. I applaud the SDIO for funding DC-X devlopment and I hope it works, and, no, launcher development is not NASAs primary goal either, IMHO they are supposed to provide the enabling technology research for others to do launcher development, and secondarily operate such launchers as they require - but that's just me. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 21:39:10 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: FAQs Newsgroups: sci.space In article <10505.2BBCB8C3@nss.org>, freed@nss.org (Bev Freed) writes: >I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly >. Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling. Or just stick 'em on sci.space.news every 28-30 days? Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 17:23:47 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Fred and Tom, ad naseum >>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... >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? [not incredibly clear explanation of complaints...something between feelings regarding Nick's method, and judgments about his meaning] T >>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'? F >Gee, funny that you get it now, then? Deliberate obtuseness, perhaps? *** Fred's issue #1; Nick's alleged trashing of others *** I only got it when you stopped trashing, and made your point patently, instead of 'allegorically'. That was my point all along, Fred. >>>>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 see we are dealing with a problem in a conflict of interpretations, not least of which is your belief that only you can adequately judge what is and is not debate. Suffice to say that I disagree with you on that last point. Why don't you take a poll, Fred, if you want some psuedo-objective point-of-view? And, as usual, you defend your insults with "he started it." "Yeah, I took some of his research and called it my own, but he started it." "So what if I stole his car, he stole my lawnmower first." Besides that, I think it's still open to interpretation whether Nick actually did start it. So your defense, besides being lame, and contradicting the first part of the sentence in which it occurs, may not even apply anyway. Your defense reminds me of the guy that broke the borrowed tool: "I never borrowed it, I already gave it back, and it was broken when you gave it to me." Make up yer mind, Fred! >>>>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. ****See below, Fred**** >>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. First, I try to address what I think you meant, for which I am rewarded with a denial of sorts, and a smart remark. Then, I point out that I am not clear what you did mean, rather than risking your childish ire, wrongly interpreting you a second time, and I'm stupid for it. I just can't win, can I, Fred? You've got a great point here somewhere, it's just that between stupid people that you must insult, and your jealous guarding of your valuable opinions, you never actually get around to making it. >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! *** Fred issue #2; Nick's alleged meaning *** Too bad the plan only exists in your mind, instead of Nick's, or you would have a really good point. Instead you have provided a good reason to ignore your insults, since they are based on incorrect interpretations that you have made about others. Forgive me for giving your insults more meaning than they ever should have had. My reading of what Nick actually said is that "people aren't required in all parts of all space processes", so your taking issue with his opinions regarding people in the space program, I read as "People are required in all parts of all space processes." So, help me out, here, Fred, since I'm so patently stupid. Did you read Nick wrong? Or are you going to eat your terminal now? If the latter, I sure hope it's one of those Cheeto and string models that all the computer mags have been raving about :-) The point is, _I_ am not stupid because of _your_ incorrect assumption. I'd only be stupid if I insulted you for having made it. But, alas, that's your job, Fred. And, finally, your style is confusing, since you tried to make two points, simultaneously, with an allegory/insult. Sadly, one point addressed a 'plan' that only existed in your mind, and the other took issue with behaviors that you do as much as anyone. >More deliberate lack of understanding, Tommy? No, no, I finally got it. You don't like the plan that Nick's posts made you imagine. And you don't like Nick's obnoxious behavior, even though it's no worse than your own. Thanks for taking the time with someone as dense as myself. >>>>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"? Of course, Socrates. How could it be otherwise? >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). Who cares who came on the net first? If you do, consider that you saw me come on after a brief haitus, before which I was on for about 2 years. If you had seen me on the net first, you'd remember when Nick and I went down exactly the same road regarding rude, unneccesary behavior. It's just amazing to me that you continue to take issue with behavior that's no worse than your own. Let's see here, my complaints about your obnoxious behavior are hypocritical, while your flames against people you decide are flamers isn't, and my complaints about your name-calling are immature, while your name-calling isn't. Yeah, right. Maybe if you called me some more names, I might see it better, Fred. "Net.ghod wannabe"? Naturally, Fred, you've correctly interpreted my motivations, when yours are impossible to judge from your actions (as your insulting of people that try, proves). I didn't really care about people that fill the net with personal garbage, what I really wanted was to impress everyone. I only put my complaints with your behavior on private mail, not because it belongs there, but because I thought you were such a jerk that you'd bring it back to the Net, playing right into my hands. Alas, I had no idea what an intellectual master you were, turning tables and bringing the history of these posts to the net, for the noble and valuable purpose of embarassing me. Whether I should feel stupid because I tried to make suggestions to such a superior intellect, or becuase I tried to communicate like an adult with a self-righteous ass, still isn't clear. Well, Fred, you exposed me. Now I'll never be able to get a(nother) job with NASA, since they all know that I'm stupider than Fred McCall. Well, I just hope you're happy. Please leave me alone, now. I just don't have the heart to attempt keeping up with one so far above me. Maybe Nick or Pat can approach your high standards, but I'm dropping it now. -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 17:11:00 PST From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" Subject: Mach 25 on Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 08:24:48 GMT, Henry Spencer writes: /Um, be careful here, Ben. In case you don't recognize the name, Jordin /was head of the LLNL group that did most of the recent work on realistic, /near-term laser propulsion, including lab tests with real high-power lasers. I really wasn't trying to question Jordin Kare's position, just giving Leik Myrabo's side since I had just read his SSI article. I also stated that Freeman Dyson has some reservations about Myrabo's approach, even though SSI is going to fund some of his research. Although I've seen some of Prof. Myrabo's presentations, I haven't read much of the technical literature in this area so I can't comment either way. /Much of the groundwork Myrabo is talking about laying for his concepts has /already been done for simpler and more practical ones. What is lacking is /funding for flight experiments. Based on the article, I believe that SSI wants to flight test some scale models. Have any laser or microwave driven *rockets* ever been tested (I've seen video of the microwave powered helicopter)? Should SSI be examining more promising approaches other than/in addition to Myrabo's air-breathing, multiple-cycle engines for small, personal launch vehicles? Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind). Ben Muniz MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com w(818)586-3578 Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 17:08 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: NASA "Wraps" Newsgroups: sci.space In the April edition of "One Small Step for a Space Activist", Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger write: "Another problem is what are called 'wraps' (or sometimes the 'center tax'). When work for a large program like Freedom or Shuttle is performed at a NASA center, the center skims off a portion which goes into what amounts to a slush fund. This money is used to fund work the center manager wants to fund. This sum is estimated to be over a third of the funds allocated. Think about that: Of the $30 billion cost of Freedom, fully $10 billion won't be spent on anything having anything to do with Space Stations! Now, maybe that $10 billion was wisely spent (and maybe it wasn't), but the work done with it should stand on its own merits, not distorting the cost of other projects. Congress has no idea of the existense of these wraps; Congress has never heard the term 'center tax'. They look at the Station they are getting and the price they are paying and note that it doesn't add up. They wonder this blissfully unaware that a third of the money is going for something else." My dear friends, your mixing fact and fiction here. A couple of weeks ago, when I first read this in your posting, I talked with one of the cost experts here in Space Station at Headquarters [if you wondering why I didn't post a response immediately, I do have a real job I'm supposed to be doing here at Headquarters, & digging up old 20 kHz data & looking into Sherzer/Kyger claims rates pretty low on the totem pole of priority. Also, I spent last weekend in Kansas City, at the National Science Teachers Association conference, extolling the virtues of SSF to 15,000 science teachers.] First off, yes, the concept of 'center tax', or 'wrap' does exist. If I recall the numbers correctly, the total 'tax' for the SSF program for this fiscal year is around $40 Million. This was computed by adding up the WP-1, WP-2, and WP-4 center 'taxes'. With the SSF budget for this fiscal year at $2.2 Billion, my calculater says the tax percentage is 04/2.2 = 1.8% Over the life of the SSF program, using your figure of $30 billion for the cost of SSF, a tax at a 1.8% rate comes to $540 million. This is alot less than $10 billion, but I will concede it's still an appreciable amount of pocket change. I should note that your estimate of the tax rate at 1/3 could be close to the actual rate. The tax is only charged on funds that are spent at the center (kind of like McDonalds at some states, where you do have to pay sales tax if you eat the food at the restaurant, but you don't if you get it take-out). For example, at WP-4, the vast bulk of the funds we receive go to the Rocketdyne Contract, and are *NOT* subject to the center tax (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd guess at least 95% of the WP-4 funds go to Rocketdyne). So, you could be right about a tax rate of 1/3, but it's only applied to funds spent at the center, and not to the prime contracts. This leads to the obvious question "What is the government doing with SSF funds that don't go to the prime contractors? (i.e. ok, WP-4 gets a slice of the $30 billion pie. A big portion of this slice goes to Rocketdyne. What happens to the balance of the funds, which aren't eaten up by the center tax?)" At WP-4, we call these funds we spend in-house supporting development funds (as they are supporting the development work done by Rocketdyne). We have used these funds to setup our own testbed, to checkout the electrical power system architecture. Our testbed has a real life solar array field (left over from solar cell research research a few years back), with lead-acid car batteries (to simulate the Nickel-Hydrogen batteries on SSF), DC switchgear, DC-DC converter units, and simulated loads. Data from the testbed was used in a recent change evaluation involving concerns about the stability of the power system. We have also used the supporting development money to purchase Nickel Hydrogen batteries, which are on life testing at both Lewis and the Crane Naval facility in Indiana. As a side point, 6 of the battery cells on test recently hit the four year life test milestone. 38 cells have completed 18,552 to 23,405 cycles (the on-orbit batteries go through 5,840 cycles per year). As a final example, my 'home' division at Lewis used the supporting development funds to purchase personal computers and work stations, for performing system analyses (like modeling of the performance of the electrical power system, availability calculations using a Monte-Carlo simulation, setting up a database with information on weight of the power system elements). Finally, the money raised by the 'tax' does not all go into a 'slush fund.' At Lewis, the director does control a small discretionary fund. Each year, any individual at Lewis can submit a proposal to the director to get money from this fund to look at pretty much anything within the Lewis Charter. Most of the tax, however, goes to fund the 'general' services at the Center, like the library, the central computer services division, the Contractor who removes the snow, etc. Thus, it is rather difficult to determine what percentage of the SSF budget doesn't go for SSF activities. To get an accurate figure, you would have to take the annual expenditure for the library (for example), and then divide by the amount of the library funds used to support SSF (which would be hard to compute by itself - how would you figure out what percentage of the bill for Aviation Week for 1 year is 'billable' to SSF, would you base it on the person-hours SSF employees spend reading AV-week versus the rest of the center personnel). You would then have to compare this estimate of the SSF portion of the library expense with the portion of the tax that goes to support the library. Who knows, maybe SSF overpays on the tax to run the library, but we underpay for snow removal? Talk about a burecratic nightmare! My last point is that I can't believe your claim that Congress has never heard of the term 'center tax.' Unfortunately, all of the NASA testimony before Congress isn't on a computer, so I can't do a simple word search someplace to prove you wrong. But surely, in some GAO audit somewhere, these NASA cost methods were documented for Congress? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 21:08:27 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In <1psg95$ree@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: [On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...] >How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't >do it? Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-) >Gee fred. After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology >for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like >this. I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than everyone else, Pat. Just a *few* corrections: 1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable to GO LOOK AT. 2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility (sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a down-side that was too expensive to overcome). I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault density for even you, Pat. -- "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: 6 Apr 1993 20:17:29 GMT From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON Subject: pushing the envelope Newsgroups: sci.space > flight tests are generally carefully coreographed and just what > is going to be 'pushed' and how > far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans, > such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed > taxi tests). .. and Chuck Yeager earlier flights with the X-1... C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:42:11 GMT From: Doug Page Subject: Quaint US Archaisms Newsgroups: sci.space In article , nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: |> In article <1993Apr2.170157.24251@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: |> |> Of course the units of force have the same names as those of weight, |> but in order to use them you need to keep useful constants like the |> omnipresent 32.???? ft/sec^2 around. |> |> Maybe you'd like to go over again how this system is _so_ natural and |> _so_ easy to use, Gary? While you're at it, you can figure out for us |> the weight of 17 barrels and a quart of foo (density 17lb 2 3/4 oz per |> cubic foot) on the moon (gravity 5 ft 7 3/32 in/sec^2). Let's face it, |> even the imperial system uses a basically metric way of relating |> quantities (i.e. that would be written as 5.59 ft/sec^2); the only |> thing you're hanging on to is the right to express the same quantity |> as 1731 inches, 144.25 feet, 48.0833 yards or 2.186 chains. What |> everyone else is saying is _why_ do you want to do that? |> |> Any apparent remaining complexity in the SI system is due to the |> multiplicity of the aforesaid prefixes. In fact what's going on (and |> the fundamental difference between SI and imperial) is that you have |> exactly one unit of each type, and all values of that type are |> expressed as some multiple of the unit. You mean like: seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years. . . :-) Remember, the Fahrenheit temperature scale is also a centigrade scale. Some revisionists tell the history something like this: The coldest point in a particular Russian winter was marked on the thermometer as was the body temperature of a volunteer (turns out he was sick, but you can't win 'em all). Then the space in between the marks on the thermometer was then divided into hundredths. :-) FWIW, Doug Page *** The opinions are mine (maybe), and do not necessarily represent those *** *** of my employer (or any other sane person, fot that matter). *** ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 22:23:00 GMT From: David Ward Subject: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5 Newsgroups: sci.space In article , gwg33762@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Garret W. Gengler) writes... >In sci.space you write: > >>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or >>128.183.104.16, or call (310)286-5690. They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan, >>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments. > >Howdy. Thanks for the info. > >I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work. >I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login >and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for >environet was "envnet". > >Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try? > >Thanks, >Garret > > The home office number for ENVIRONET is (301) 286-5690 (note area code change). A friend of mine used to use it to get LDEF data, but he had to apply for a login name and password. I have a call in for more info, which I hope to get in the morning. David W. @ GSFC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 21:01:38 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1psgs1$so4@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >| >|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using >|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing. On the other >|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance >|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base >|can't do. >| > >What do you mean? Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh joints? > >You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands. No, they fold on the dotted line. Look at pictures of carriers with loads of a/c on the deck, wings all neatly folded. -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com |about other things. PADI DM-54909 | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:24:57 GMT From: Doug Page Subject: Sr-71 in propoganda films? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr5.220610.1532@sequent.com>, bigfoot@sequent.com (Gregory Smith) writes: |> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |> |> >In <1phv98$jbk@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: |> |> |> >>THe SR-71 stopped being a real secret by the mid 70's. |> >>I had a friend in high school who had a poster with it's picture. |> |> >It was known well before that. I built a model of it sometime in the |> >mid 60's, billed as YF-12A/SR-71. The model was based on YF-12A specs |> >and had a big radar in the nose and 8 AAMs in closed bays on the |> >underside of the fuselage. The description, even then, read "speeds |> >in excess of Mach 3 at altitudes exceeding 80,000 feet." |> |> L.B.J. publically announced the existance of the Blackbird program |> in 1964. He's also the one who dubbed it the SR-71 - it was the RS-71 until LBJ mippselled (sic) it. FWIW, Doug Page *** The opinions are mine (maybe), and don't necessarily represent those *** *** of my employer. *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT From: Richard Buenneke Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation ------- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: spacenews@austen.rand.org, cti@austen.rand.org Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT From: Richard Buenneke 4/06/93: GIBBONS OUTLINES SPACE STATION REDESIGN GUIDANCE NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. April 6, 1993 RELEASE: 93-64 Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space station. A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee. Each option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development, operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds. Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA budget for the President's new technology investment. As a result, station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in the rest of the NASA budget. For example, a space station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years. Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of the advisory committee. Generally, the members-designate focused upon administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted. They also received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory committee to consider. Gibbons also announced that the United States and its international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process. To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology. The overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilitiaes. Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving that goal. Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program represents. However, he also is committed to a space station that is well managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation." NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian participation will be accomplished through the East-West Space Science Center at the University of Maryland under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev. ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 429 ------------------------------