Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:00:14 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #565 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 14 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 565 Today's Topics: DC-X discussion was RE:shuttle critics DC?/SSTO as OMV/space Tug Dornan's View Re: SSTO Alert Update Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? (2 msgs) GPS Launch Dates. HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days International Space Observatory looking for PLANET MAPS Looking for star maps Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment McElwaine FAQ (2 msgs) Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) (2 msgs) 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: 13 May 1993 00:43:38 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: DC-X discussion was RE:shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >A number of experimental VTOLs needed to do this. The Ryan X-13 comes >to mind. somebody's gotta post on this X-vehicle. how stable were its flight characteristics during the flip? >(one) can't obviate the Shuttle's shortcomings. >> We cannot afford to confuse the US Congress with conflicting signals in >> the space community. >This is a scary notion. I infer "People who don't agree with Ken >should keep quiet." Ken, think about the implications of your >statement. Wrong inference Bill...I hope anyone who disagrees with me will speak up with clear cut technical reasons. So I can amend my ideas. >> Wouldn't it make more sense to compare DC-X to Delta, Titan, and Ariane? >Such comparisons have often been made, but you weren't around the last >time they were posted. sorry, if I'm makin' you guys repeat yourselves re:DC-X. My main concern was the political justification of DC-X by the "shuttle is an ugly duckling" routine. DC-X should stand on its own. Sherzer's email too me (an interesting report re:DC-X's proposal) was interesting and more convincing than old copy about shuttle's shortcomings. ken ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 05:22:11 GMT From: Greg Wilkins Subject: DC?/SSTO as OMV/space Tug Newsgroups: sci.space As a DC-X derived craft (or other SSTO) will have no wings in orbit, and will be a light weight structure, how much will this remove the need for an orbital space tug? Will we see SSTO vehicles going out to geostationary orbits to pick up exhibits for the Smithsonian? Will they go to lunar orbit? If so, will they need an atmosphere in which to do their flip manouvre, ie will they be able to land on the moon? Or is the term "light weight" as applied to a launch/reentry vehicle still a very heavy weight orbital manouvering vehicle? What heavy bits (eg some engines, tanks, heatshield?), could easily be detached and parked in LEO while the rest of the vehicle goes to a higher (or lunar) orbits. Is this a better approach than having a second craft for orbital manouvering? -gregw ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1993 23:21:09 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Dornan's View Re: SSTO Alert Update Newsgroups: sci.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >A week from tomorrow (May 19), the House Armed Services Subcommittee >on Research and Technology will be marking up their authorization. I have just spoken with the office of Robert Dornan (R-CA). he and my congressman, Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) have submitted to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Research and Technology language which directs the full committee to: 1. Fully embrace SSTO as the technology of choice as a space launch vehicle. 2. Express support for the DC-X testing program currently underway 3. Extend funding above current DOD requests for $5 million in order to develop SSRT, up to $100 million total. This effort should not be confused with the actual SDIO budget bill for the SSRT. This language is only advisory for the entire House Armed Services Committee. It is a significant hurdle to clear the Sub-committee. In this budgetary climate it will be even more difficult to get SSRT funding extended in the HArmed Srvcs Comm within the actual bill which will go to the floor of the House. It will be another measure to convince the Senate to do the same, or maintain the funding in House-Senate budgetary negotiations when their joint committee meets. Anyone know about the Clinton Adminstrtn's view? At minimum, it is hoped by Cong. Dornan's office, that the subcommittee will at least express the following: 1 The need to allocate more than the $5 million currently slated for DC-X in order to support development of SSRT (DC-x concept of landing a rocket vertically). 2 Full development of DC-X-2 in the next year (DC-X-2 will allow an analysis of how to reduce turn-around time between missions). 3 Exchange of the SSRT program out of SDIO (space defense initiative org) into either ARPA or USAF as of FY 95 in order "to take full advantage of the dual use nature of the system." It is anticipated that this language will be supported by representatives Minetta, Brown (D-CA), and Walker. IMHO, However, vocal support for this measure should be targeted to: 1. The ranking sub-committee members: Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) (202)225-4431 225-5842(fax) Bob Stump (R-AZ) (202)225-4576 225-6328(fax) 2. The ranking house armed services committee members Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA) (202)225-2661 225-9817(fax) Spence (I don't have info on this congressperson, but I was given the name by Dornan's office, [not to be confused with henry]) I expect that Cong. Dellums & Schroeder are quite opposed to DOD SDIO funding. So, expect a problem there, and be happy if their offices are willing to listen. I'm not sure who the ranking minority member is on the house armed services committee (not Henry Spencer of Toronto! 8-) ). Any ideas? Khayash ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1993 23:44:59 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >Why not criticize Shuttle? If it had had more criticism 20 years ago >we'd have a better system now. Not criticizing it now does not mean >that its problems will magically disappear. >>My point was (1) that if we understand a system enough, >>we will be able to manage its short-comings and >>(2) that even with those short-comings, we would not call into question >>the greater social impact of that system. >Your attitude is mystifying. Few here advocate scrapping shuttle now. >Why turn a blind eye to its faults? Perhaps, I didn't clarify my concern properly. I am concerned that in the attempt to gain political support for DC-X, the arguments have become excessively critical of shuttle...without recognition of the significant advances which were made by the STS program. Maybe this forum isn't interested in a good "Wow", but when I read the post that had the stats for 1 year of flight time for STS...I was impressed by the achievements. I think some are underestimating the hostility of space to humans. I am glad that you do not support scraping shuttle now, as we shouldn't. But congressmen and staffers who are looking for ways to cut science and spend on "social programs" will start thinking of this if DC-Xers approach their political battle by attacking orbiter, instead of making their argument based on comparisons against Arianespace's vehicle family, Chinese Long March, and NASDA's H-2. For congressional support wouldn't it be wiser to not attack a big program that funds factories across the country? Wouldn't it be wiser to appeal to nationalism and patriotism by saying that our boys are gonna make the DC-X to go up against all those other country's rockets in order to retake the lead in spaceflight? I'll tell you one thing, your bagging on shuttle's admitted short-comings are gonna concern the congressfolk for KSC'ers who are gonna loose their monopoly on launch sites, and JSC'ers who are gonna lose their monopoly on manned access to space, and probably others. The California delegation is probably gonna go for it anyway because we're desparate for any contract! ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 10:20:34 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.192757.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >> [DC-1 could also be a space tug and Lunar lander] > >Allen, could you please drop this goofy fantasy? The engineering >needs of a space tug and a lunar transit vehicle are very different >from those of an SSTO rocket. I disagree. A core DC-1 with modifications would make a very serviceable tug or lander. Would these be optimal designs for such vehicles? No. What they would be is cheap and workable solutions which could be had for millions instead of billions of $$. Eventually specialized designs will take over as the market grows but to bootstrap this sort of application I don't think you can do it cheaper. It therefore isn't fantasy. >for a >crazy stunt, you *might* be able to gas up an empty DC-1 in orbit and >fly it to the Moon. It sure ain't the way to build a cost-effective, >lightweight Moon bus or GEO-tug! But a DC-1 off the shelf for maybe $300M. Spend that much again on modifications and you have a vheicle which could take 20K pounds to the moon and return same. The other alternatives would spend that much on requirements analysis alone! It isn't suitable for the sort of extended stay alone NASA is currently thinking of but it would be suitable for resuply of a base. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 03:44:36 GMT From: trobertsj@cc.curtin.edu.au Subject: GPS Launch Dates. Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.aviation.products In sci.space on 12th May 1993:- uli@izfm.uni-stuttgart.de (Uli Allgeier) asks > When will the next GPS-Satellite be launched ? Scheduled GPS launch dates are:- 12 May 1993 SVN 37 PRN 7 24 Jun 1993 SVN 39 PRN 9 2 Sep 1993 28 Oct 1993 2 Mar 1994 Sources:- "GPS WORLD" April 1993. US Naval Observatory, Washington, USA. ============================================================================= John Roberts | Internet: TROBERTSJ@cc.curtin.edu.au Architecture & Planning | Tel: +61-9-351-7254 Curtin University | Fax: +61-9-351-2711 G.P.O. Box U1987, Perth | Western Australia. 6001 | ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:00:42 GMT From: dempsey@stsci.edu Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1spr9o$pl7@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > > YOu guys need private accts. > I have several, but that does not chancge the fact that I work here and that much of my information comes from inside here. > > Of course, isn't it odd that someone would get burned for > posting to a public forum. > Not when public reletions for a big public project is so very important. > is it because they don't like you using your first amendment > rights? or that the data is confidential? if It is becuase sometimes people post incorrect information or inappropriately. All they want is that the PR people handle things, for good or ill, and I don't think that is unreasonable. No one is being prevented from posting, they just want people to very careful. > so you should remind them that because the taxpayers pay for > AURA, we are entitled to all information a tthe institute, > except for data which is held backa s a courtesy to the PI's. > Do you want the staplers and paper clips too we use? You pay for defense projects too and you are not entittle to any information from them. > actually even the DATA is public, and under FOIA, cannot be withheld. > Maybe, but you have not made the investment of time and energy that the PI's have either. ____________________________________________________________________________ Robert C Dempsey (410) 338-1334 STScI-PODPS 3700 San Martin Dr. Baltimore, MD 21218 I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great oceans of truth lay all undiscovered before me. - Isaac Newton ____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 23:35:44 GMT From: Carlos Guillermo Niederstrasser Subject: International Space Observatory Newsgroups: sci.space Does anyone know what the current status of ESA's International Space Observatory (ISO) is? I have read several articles, but they are all at least two years old. Also what is the current estimated launch date for SIRTF? Please answer via email to carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu because I have not been able to read the news lately :( Thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | Only two things are infinite, | | Princeton Planetary Society | the universe and human | | | stupidity, and I'm not sure | | | about the former. - Einstein | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:17:56 CST From: Jim Gorges Subject: looking for PLANET MAPS Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: > tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes: > >> Where can I get topographical maps of Mars, Venus, other terrestrial >>bodies? > > Barrington, NJ 08007 for a free catalog. > > The other people to ask would be the US Geological Survey. They have maps of > just about everything. Unfortunately, I do not have their address. > -- For USGS, you could call 1-800-USA-MAPS. If memory serves, you reach voicemail, but it might be possible to request a catalog of maps of the moon and other planets. -- Jim Gorges | Life is a series of GENIE: J.GORGES | adjustments. Fidonet: jim.gorges@f24.n147.z1.fidonet.org | (Michael J. Carney - 1985) ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 93 16:41:21 +1200 From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz Subject: Looking for star maps Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Hi. I'm looking for star maps that I can pull the data out of for a 3D representation of all the known stars and planets (And major asteroids too etc). Is there anything like that in the internet somewhere? TIA. -- Hamish Marson, Computer Services, University of Waikato| hamish@waikato.ac.nz. Fax +64 7 8384066 | Computers are only Disclaimer: Remember. You heard it here first! | Human..... How immense appear to us the sins that we have not committed. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 08:05:36 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.172334.25259@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful >>for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated. > >DC-1 won't be man rated, it will cary people but won't use the same >criteria used to man rate today's launchers (which only add costs without >improving safety). The issue of "man-rating" a launcher deserves a little clarification... As I understand it, man-rating used to refer to the process of converting a missile designed to lob nuclear warheads into a launch vehicle suitable for launching manned spacecraft. Hand-waving aside, man-rating was concerned with three main issues: * launch environment: reduction of Pogo, acoustic loading/vibration, etc., to acceptable levels *as required* * abort modes: improving fault detection equipment and such so that decisions (automatic or manual) regarding aborts can be made in time (!) * reliability: identification of systems that should have automatic backups, structural modifications for greater strength in order to reduce the need for item two :-) The modifications made to the Titan II's used in the Gemini program are typical in this regard. It seems to me that DC-? will be man-rated from the start in that attention will be paid to these criteria from the start. Allen, you seem to feel that "man-rating" is somehow different from what I've just outlined. More to the point, you seem to feel that the current process for man-rating is a waste of time and money. What have I missed? -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 10:09:35 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education In article <1sogo5$mgh@suntan.eng.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes: >As for mathematics being a science, well, it is more of a meta-science >(in a Kantian view), and some claim that it is an art. The David >Report called it The Science of Order, but that's probably pomposity. It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract deductive field. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 93 20:24:34 GMT From: kendrhe@yang.earlham.edu Subject: McElwaine FAQ Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho In article <1993May11.180325.3735@cactus.org>, shafer@cactus.org (Mary F. Shafer) writes: > On the other hand, he lost his Net privileges on 7 May, after > appealing to his school's review board, so the entire discussion > is moot at this time. Yes, but the talk over in alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine is that he's already planning to file suit to get his privileges back. Some say that if the ruling is in his favor we can expect THE IMMINENT DEATH OF THE NET. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 05:50:35 GMT From: Jonathan Blum Subject: McElwaine FAQ Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho In article <1993May12.152434.23319@yang.earlham.edu> kendrhe@yang.earlham.edu writes: >In article <1993May11.180325.3735@cactus.org>, shafer@cactus.org (Mary F. Shafer) writes: > Yes, but the talk over in alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine is that he's >already planning to file suit to get his privileges back. Some say that >if the ruling is in his favor we can expect THE IMMINENT DEATH OF THE NET. Any way we netters could put in a bit of testimony if he does go to trial? Make it clear that he's being a public nuisance, or something? I'm sure that submitting an electronic petition or amicus curae brief would give them something to consider... :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 10:02:50 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1so3lo$2m6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > > >THere you go again. MOre thumb promoting, quinto-podal leaning >atavism :-) > >I think jane goodal documented basic tool use among the >gombe chimps. and i think any sort of multi purpose >tentacle could also make a highly effective affector. Chimp grasping ability is limited by the lack of an opposable thumb, though a three finger arrangement, mutually opposable, is feasible for an alien. Boneless tentacles can exert considerable pull but not push due the the lack of leverage imposed by the lack of hinged bones. >I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled land creature, >which developes a pretty good tool culture. it could even >be amphibious, or aquatic. something like an octopus, >with a bigger brain. Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large active boneless creatures on land. In water, the situation is considerably better since bouyancy supplies the necessary resistance to gravity. However, water imposes constraints on technology in several respects, primarily in metalworking and the use of combustion for external energy requirements. It's hard to imagine aquatic creatures developing the technology for spaceflight. Many tentacles, like many eyes, run into problems with processing overload. In any evolutionary situation where various creatures can develop, those with sufficient, but not excess, sensors and manipulators tend to prosper. It's interesting to note that, on land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures are actually 4 limbed, however, with two of the limbs not normally used for locomotion. So it seems Nature has decided that 4 limbs are the necessary minimum for large active land creatures, and that 6 or 8 are excess in creatures large enough to have complex brains. Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would seem to dictate that active complex creatures stay in a size range similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant. Gary Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 10:18:20 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May11.193306.7093@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1sn90m$194@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: > >>My point in this debate was my belief that the shuttle has demonstrated >>superior payload capability to any other system. > >If you where the one paying the bills you wouldn't think so. > >Even measured in terms of payload alone, it is nowhere near Saturn. > >>I had said that it >>had delivered the most mass to orbit. > >As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered >to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years. We have to be careful to define what is payload and what is propulsion and spacecraft structure. If we say payload is that mass that isn't part of the flight systems or propulsion systems, then Saturn didn't lift as much payload as Shuttle. If we just want to talk about throw weight of the lower stages, of course Saturn lifted more than Shuttle, but it's cost to orbit in same year dollars was higher. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 03:19:03 GMT From: The Master Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes: >Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions >about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything >going on in the space community, he seems to know it. > The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek: > 1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you? > 1) Do you ever eat or sleep? > 3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research? > Or do you just use an account there? >Just curious. >Aaron Well, Henry Spencer is *also* responsible for parts of Cnews, and other internet related things. Quite a guy. :) Onya Henry! c. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 00:33:32 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >Glenn Reynolds points out that the entire DC-X costed roughly the >same as the Shuttle toilet! (See Space News, April 15, 1993). ~WARNING: GENTEEL TYPE MEMBERS OF AUDIENCE SHOULD NOT READ FURTHUR. this discussion will deal with the aspects of defecation on-orbit. Allen! 8-D |-) 8-D 8-) (I am laughing hysterically!) If DC-Y carries people into orbit, then it's gonna need that toilet too! Unless you wanta pull out your local ziplock baggie and tape it to your fellow passenger's rectum (i.e. apollo style). Realize that it is very difficult (8-) ha ha hah hah ha ha- i am still laughing hysterically aha ha ha hahhha ha 8-) very difficult to take a potty break on orbit. Maybe you realize this, but for the sci.space readers who aren't... I relate the following story. WARNING again, but if you read this far, you're gonna keep reading anyway! 8-D 8-> |-D~ (laughing so hard I'm drooling) An MD astronaut once told me a story about one of the early orbiter missions. The old WCS (Waste Collection System) depended on air flow to force feces away from the rectum and float it into spinning wires which were spinning in the middle of the commode's bowl. These wires would theoretically slice and dice the feces against the inside of the commode where it could cake on in a layer. Unfortunately, this apparently didn't always work. On one mission the wires didn't really slice and dice. Instead the feces just kinda built up on the wires, until by day 3 or so (I think), when our illustrious astronauts wound up with a big lumpy mass of feces in the middle of the WCS which blocked the opening of the commode and would rotate around and around when they activated the WCS. At this point the astronaut made a hand gesture which made it look like the thing was spinning a couple of revs per second. Finally, one of the astronauts had to get in there with a chisel (I think a screw-driver) in order to break a hole in the thing so they could use the bathroom in some way. 8-) ha ha This astro also related that by day 3, they had stopped catching floating peanuts pacman style in their mouths. They were sitting on the mid-deck eating their dinner when they noticed small flecks of feces floating out of the commode! Have you heard this before? It is funny to think of how foreign the space environment is to the Earth-bound environ which we have. With no up or down, there is no way to use water in a WCS, feces doesn't drop it sort of separates slowly (am I grossing you out yet? sorry, I warned you though). Enter the new WCS design. Can someone please post the technical info, like how it works. The design I had heard of was one where they are now two compartments to the commode in order to separate the feces from the crew module a|nd decrease the chance of leaking smell and particles. In conclusion, consider a crew of 8 and a 14 day mission (yeah its optimistic for orbiter ops- [vaccine against shuttle critics' bite]) Now consider the amount of feces. Gee, that's a hefty mass, eh? 8-D Ah, the benefits of manned spaceflight! If we're gonna work there, then we gotta have a commode! If someone from Hamilton Standard reads this post, please post a response, I think Hamilton Standard is the subcontrator on this particular project. khayash@hsc.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 08:14:15 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >Indeed, "man-rating" is a holdover from a time when people >were converting ICBMs into spacecraft launchers. These >were multimillion dollar assets that were supposed to destroy >themselves in use! Do people "man-rate" commercial aircraft? >No. Ships? No. One does not want to design a 10 to 100 million >dollar capital asset that has a 10% chance of destroying itself >on each use. "Man-rating" a reusable launcher is (or should be) >irrelevant. Once again, it depends on what you mean by "man-rating". There are certainly scads of tests and criteria which must be passed before cars, ships, and aircraft are "certified" suitable for use by the public. -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 565 ------------------------------