Date: Sat, 15 May 93 05:17:14 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #574 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 15 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 574 Today's Topics: Draft of SSTO report language Life on Mars. (2 msgs) Magellan Update - 05/14/93 Mars Observer Update - 05/14/93 Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment Over zealous shuttle critics (3 msgs) Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? SDIO kaput! (2 msgs) Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? 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: 14 May 1993 21:33:43 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: Draft of SSTO report language Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >The names keep changing real fast. my theory, is that SDI >will put money into the DC-X, better keep everything >named that way :-) SDI just changed its name. -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 00:24:17 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1svflu$5r@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes: >> Levin says that the version of the GCMS wasn't sensitive enough to >>detect organics in the amounts you might expect. He gives the example >>of an Antartica sample which the GCMS was unable detect the organic >>compunds but which his Labeled release experiment was able to. >Hmm. "On Mars", the NASA History book about Viking, says the GCMS *was* >sensitive enough to give positive results on Antarctic soil. This may >well be a matter of picking and choosing your samples... Which, needless to say, couldn't be done very well with Viking. Manned exploration would be a big improvement, but then again so would be a Viking with treads. -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 1993 00:54:16 GMT From: John McKernan Subject: Life on Mars. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.165407.1225@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > Since we really don't know how life originated (massively >overhyped abiotic syntheses of trace amounts of very simple precursors >notwithstanding), how can one make such a statement? The evidence is >equally consistent with the "life is very rare, requiring specific >conditions and great luck to begin." > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Some new information has been discovered recently. Microscopic fossils have been found in VERY old rocks. The theory is that this life is so old that it must have been destroyed during the periodic intense meteorite bombardments that were a feature of the early solar system. Under this theory life originated on Earth multiple times (between multiple meteorite bombardments), and therefore the conditions for the creation of life cannot be that unlikely. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Embrace your brave new world, support nihilistic technofetishism. ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 1993 04:42 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan Update - 05/14/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT May 14, 1993 1. The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, gathering gravity data to plot the density variations of Venus in the mid-latitudes. 2. Battery reconditioning was completed on Friday, May 14th. 3. Friday, May 14th, marked the nominal end of Cycle-4. The cycle was extended by 10 days to re-acquire gravity data which was affected by passage of the radio signal through the atmosphere of Venus early in the cycle. 4. An Operations Readiness Review for aerobraking was held Thursday, May 13th. Several action items were identified, but all indications were that the spacecraft and flight team are ready to begin the Transition Experiment (TEX) on May 25th. 5. A follow-up TEX Operations Simulation will be conducted on May 19th. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 1993 04:44 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 05/14/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT May 14, 1993 4:30 PM PDT Flight Team members have finalized plans and management has authorized file creation for recovering the spacecraft to Array Normal Spin state. That activity actually began this morning at shortly after 8:00 AM when the command to reestablish Inertial Reference was sent. Verification of successful execution of that command was received shortly afterward. While the capability to recover sooner has been available to the team, the opportunity has been taken to better analyze memory readouts to determine specific causes, and develop a permanent solution. The extra time spent on analysis has allowed AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) and Flight Software engineers to develop and test a solution to the problem that has caused several occurrences of entry into Contingency Mode. The current schedule is for the Starex Covariance change to be uplinked beginning at about 7:00 AM on Monday, May 17. With verification of successful performance of that change, activities to recover to Array Normal Spin should be completed by late morning Monday. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:04:27 GMT From: Mark Wilson Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education In <1993May13.100935.21187@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: |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. How do you do experiments in mathematics? -- Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money. Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related. Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1993 23:38:25 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > Pawel, > > I think the shuttle really averages 2-3 flights/year. True. But the system is not used to its full capacity today (I've said that Shuttle IS ABLE to fly 3-3.5 missions/year). Anyway, my point was that the shuttle performance is much below original spec of 12/year/orbiter. 3/year: how I've got it: In post-Challenger era the shortest turn-around times from launch to launch are about 4 months (see e.g. Atlantis flights between Nov 1990 and Aug 1992). That gives you 3flights/year/orbiter. You can probably squeeze it a little bit and get 3.5flights/year. That calculation does not take into account OMDP breaks (after each 5-6 flights). This is the operational limit for ONE orbiter. If you are operating 4 orbiters in parallel and try to fly all of them at the rate of 3/year, than the processing facilities are going to be the bottleneck. I think that with existing facilities flying 12 missions/year with the 4 orbiter fleat is close to impossible. Pawel Moskalik *** ================================ * ==================================== *** Of course I speak for myself. Do you think that anybody else would allow me to speak for him ?????? =========== * ==================================== *** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:04:03 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space In <1sp319$ai5@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >Henry, my statement is not illusion. I am pleased that you understand the >importance of maintaining the shuttle program as is. (or am I misinterpreting >your post?). Yet, I am concerned about your assertion; how can you honestly >say that the shuttle hasn't met "any" of its specifications? What specs >are you talking about? I suspect he is referring to costs, reflight rates, cargo capability, and any number of other things that were in the original plan for the vehicle. >Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the other >shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and most revolutionary >space vehicle. One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands, >and is reusable. In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications >for this program. It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow >to the X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies. The engineering >specs that the guys in the trenches had were to develop a system which was >man-ratable, could land reliably, and could be reflown. These goals were quite >visionary for the 1970's, and I would argue that they are challenging even >today, including for the DC-X program. The Shuttle is a clean break with the X-plane work and has nothing to do with it. Nothing with a solid motor on it would ever have been considered 'man ratable' -- they bent the rules for Shuttle. A can can 'land reliably' and 'be reflown'. It would probably require no more refurbishment than Shuttle does -- in fact, probably less. >I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the >space shuttle program. Shuttle flight rates were supposed to be *at least* 24 per year (which is the figure that was used to justify costs and amortization). It has never flown that often and never will fly that often. >The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle. Untrue. It is one of several *refurbishable* space vehicles. >But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever >flown. I don't think so. >I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is >valuable in and of itself. Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the >basis of economics. A several billion $$ per copy space vehicle is *not* the way to get engineering and techincal data for hypersonic flight. Shuttle takes too much refurbishment. It is a failure at its intended mission for that reason, if for no other. >I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in >support of the DC-X program . Your support of DC-X is based on hopes. >My support for the shuttle program is based on record. A record of high expense, low flight rate access to space which suffered a total loss of vehicle and all aboard in one of the first 25 flights. >Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the proven Shuttle program. Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when shuttle is exactly >what you guys need in order to learn how to operate DC-X on-orbit. Sorry, but Shuttle tells us nothing about operating DC-X on orbit, and DC-X isn't an orbital vehicle anyway. People who are interested in fast, inexpensive, routine access to space (DC-1) are not going to be interested in supporting a vehicle which is costly, requires a standing army, suffers from low flight rates and high maintenance requirements. -- "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: Sat, 15 May 1993 02:01:59 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >Pawel, > I think the shuttle really averages 2-3 flights/year. > we have a 4 orbiter fleet, and only 8 missions > make it on the manifest, plus some vehicle or > other is back at downey every year. we could have > a higher flight rate, but not much. > the shuttle reminds me of Brunels Boat. > what was it, the"great western"??? the one > that bankrupted him, and broke his health. >pat I don't remember the name of said boat, but it eventually went on to do great things; it laid the first transatlantic cable, for instance. Doesn't remind me of the shuttle at all. -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:19:45 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1srqe8$nor@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993May11.221222.26160@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >> >>Everyone was unemployed and a drunk while you lived there, Pat? That >>seems to explain a great deal. And now you're an 'inside the Beltway' >>manager -- which presumably explains the rest. >Count on Fred to never miss a chance at a gratuitous insult. Interesting. When Pat snipes it's 'a joke'; when I do it back it's 'gratuitous insult'. Get a clue, son. And he quite obviously missed the humour of my response to his *EVERYONE* that lived there when he lived there was unemployed and a drunk. >YOu should really try improving your social life. It will do >wonders for your attitude. My social life is fine. You're the one living with a cat. >St Lawrence and Franklin counties NY state were the two largest >counties, they also were the Least densely populated, in NYS, >Lowest 2 pre capita incomes, Highest Unemployment (Worse then the bronx) >Highest alcholism Rate, Highest per capita alcohol consumption, >Fewest number of doctors per 1000 population, least hospitals. >After the st lawrence seaway was built, and the lumber companies >went west, there wasn't much except aluminum and glass production >which heavily automated in the 70's. >So why don't you tell us about the statistics for your neighborhood. Well, Pat, I grew up all over the place, so it's kind of hard to tell you. I guess I spent the most time living in a little tiny agricultural community in Colorado -- which just happened to have something silly like 7 of the top 20 millionaires in Colorado living in it. And now I live in North Dallas, not all that far from Ross Perot. Sounds good, huh? Now take into account that my father was a professional soldier and that for most of my childhood was not exactly well-paid (AVF didn't come in until 1972 or so -- mud grunts weren't exactly well paid before that). Really, get a clue. -- "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: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:58:58 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.185232.23448@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> Ben Burch writes: >I just heard on the radio (CNN Radio News) that the SDI has been renamed the >"Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative". It is to concentrate on ground-based >interceptors. They claim that without the threat of the Soviet Union, missile defense should concentrate on weapons from 'terrorist states',i.e. Scud- type missles. Well, Liberals don't like technology, so what do you think? Liberals would rather waste tax money on social programs. I for one think our space program would go a long way if the welfare system wasn't sucking money away from it, stunting our technological development. Thank you Clinton for keeping us on Earth. In 20 years when someone asks me why we never went to Mars, I'll just say 'Clinton' ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 00:18:26 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <1993May13.185232.23448@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> Ben Burch writes: >I just heard on the radio (CNN Radio News) that the SDI has been renamed the >"Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative". It is to concentrate on ground-based >interceptors. > They claim that without the threat of the Soviet Union, missile defense should concentrate on weapons from 'terrorist states',i.e. Scud- type missles. I guess Sec. of Defense ASSpin has never heard of the PLA's Long March rocket. Liberals just don't like technology. Liberals would rather waste tax money on social programs. I for one think our space program would go a long way if the welfare system wasn't sucking money away from it, stunting our technological development.> Thank you Clinton for keeping us on Earth. In 20 years when someone asks me why we never went to Mars, I'll just say 'Clinton' Simon > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:11:42 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following: >1 the number failures projected for DC-X are less than the current number of >failures or potential failures in the shuttle program. DC-1 (the production vehicle we hope will result from the DC-X program) is a vehicle using multiple, liquid fueled restartable engines which are run at about 80%-90% of their rated thrust in normal operation. The Shuttle uses solid boosters that can't be turned off and a main engine that is routinely run on takeoff well above 100%. You tell me which approach you think is more failure prone. >2 that the payload delivery and return will surpass orbiter operations in >terms of cost per pound Well, you have a low maintenance fast turnaround vehicle that can boost 20k lb on the one hand, and you have a larger, extremely high maintenance slow turnaround vehicle that must operate from only one launch site on the other. Which do you think will provide better routine access to space and move more cargo in a given time? >3 that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable >DC-X successor It's 'man ratable' from the start. The Shuttle, with its solid boosters, never should have been man-rated in the first place. If something goes wrong while they're lit, the crew is toast. I don't think anyone is suggesting a 'hiatus' for Shuttle (as Shuttle proponents forced for expendables). We shouldn't get rid of Shuttle until we have a real vehicle. >4 Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and >technical payloads. Cheaper, more frequent, more routine access to space. What do *you* think? -- "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: Sat, 15 May 1993 01:45:54 GMT From: Hans Kinwel Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.220831.8619@leland.Stanford.EDU> 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. My god! You dare posting! I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer some time ago by email. Unfortunately I never received any response. Still, those questions kept nagging me. Because, not only in sci.space his voice is heard, but also on sci.military, comp.lang.c and news.software.b (and maybe some other newsgroups I dont read). And on _every_ thread he indulges himself with, he knows the answer. Frequently, on threads I consider most interesting, and even before I see Mr Spencer's name on the list. After reading his posting, you realize this is not just an answer, it is _the_ answer. If Mr Spencer says there is a problem, it means there is a Problem. And his tutoring style is very good too. Just this week, in news.software.b about Control headers and an RFC (the article has expired here but) 'Read what the RFC says. "First". Not "Most appropiate". "First"' This may sound trivial to you, reader. But it made quite an impression on me. AND his continuing friendly answers to newbies. "expire doesn't expire some articles" "try mkhistory -r" Just today a collegue mailed me a copy of Mr Spencer's "Ten Commandments for C programming" which has, appearently, been reposted to alt.folklore.computers. I didn't ask for it! Now, what I really would like to see is an interview with Mr Spencer. A magazine (photograph!), or even better a tv program. (No! I want both!) Wouldn't you know of any? Of course, my chances of ever seeing an american scientific tv program are diminishingly small, but "Horizon" on the BBC does a good job. Frequently I see guys from JPL or Thinking Machines strolling around my screen. Oh! You lucky Americans! You can just go to Usenix and stuble upon him! As somebody replied on whether the space shuttle is connected to Usenet: "No. Of course the main flow of information would be up, unless Henry Spencer would be aboard, in which case the main flow of information would be down." Regards, Hansk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:27:58 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space In pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >... >>Hmmm. Not sure what's required for ships. Probably not much, since >>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those >>on the ship and those who invested in it. >Which is why there are tough standards for shipbuilding, even if >the government had _nothing_ to do with it. >>If a plane or spacecraft >>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it >>land in an inappropriate place. >Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez? Yeah. How many people did it kill? -- "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: Sat, 15 May 1993 00:32:52 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>... >>>Hmmm. Not sure what's required for ships. Probably not much, since >>>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those >>>on the ship and those who invested in it. >>Which is why there are tough standards for shipbuilding, even if >>the government had _nothing_ to do with it. >>>If a plane or spacecraft >>>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it >>>land in an inappropriate place. >>Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez? >Yeah. How many people did it kill? I don't remember all the details, but the cleanup operation had several fatalities. But I was mainly talking about the financial aspects of the accident. This will be much less, of course, once the government finally gets out of the "steam age" of spill cleanup and _thinks_ about legalizing bioremediation on oil spills (I think they let a couple acres of disturbed area be tested after the Valdez spill, and demanded that Exxon steamclean the rest, at enourmous cost (which eventually, according to some people in the oilfield who've had to clean up oil spills have told me, probably greatly exacerbated the damage -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Newsgroups: sci.space From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: Re: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) Message-Id: <1993May14.205845.16439@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Sender: news@ringer.cs.utsa.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: lonestar.utsa.edu Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio References: <1993May11.142733.7620@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1993May12.031208.11167@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 20:58:45 GMT Lines: 34 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1993May12.031208.11167@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >>Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable >>versions of the DC series? > >I'm not sure anybody's planned that far ahead in detail, but it's an >obvious possibility. The management there seems less hidebound than the >people at the Cape and Vandenberg. In the desert they wouldn't have the problems with high humidity that occur at coastal launch facilities. I mean, humidity plus cryogenic fuels adds up to major ice problems. Plus the weather would be much more predictable, and range safety would be IMHO the same or even easier for a desert launch area. In the event of a accident with a manned DC-vehicle (god forbid) an ejecting crew wouldn't have to contend with the added hazard of landing in the water, and it would definitely make recovering debris easier for the accident investigation. based on what I've read though, an launch abort and emergency landing would be more likely. Now, if they couldn't return to the launch area, could the landing gear handle a landing in the desert? I admit, my knowledge of the DC program is limited- I haven't seen anything on it out side of the net. Simon ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 574 ------------------------------