Conference 7.286::space

    
    Gee, I sure couldn't be more proud.  Good to see NASA isn't getting
    sucked into playing those petty bureaucratic/political games.
    
    Matt
    

From: [email protected] (John Woods, Software)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.humor
Subject: Humorous quote from AIR&SPACE magazine
Date: 24 Sep 87 19:01:00 GMT
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
 
    From the October/November 1987 AIR&SPACE magazine, in an article
on Project Vanguard entitled "The Day the Rocket Died": 
 
...[after the announcement of Vanguard's explosion on the launch pad
on December 6, 1957]... Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson (the same
"Engine Charlie" who once told the Senate, "[F]or years I've thought
that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and
vice versa," probably an accurate analysis) was asked whether the
Russians might beat the Americans into orbit.  "I wouldn't care if
they did," he responded.  (It was later claimed that Wilson favored
the development of the automatic transmission so that he could drive
with one foot in his mouth.) 
 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, [email protected]
 
  "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
  eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals, and lets us get straight to the
  business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." 
                       		-- Johnny Hart
                                       

    This morning, CNN carried some footage from Soviet TV around the
    launch of the Cosmos biosat and the about to be broken manned space
    endurance record. One of the Soviet academicians commented that
    the biosat research on space-sickness was important for when they
    started 'long' space missions. I don't know if the juxtaposition
    of these items was doen by the Soviets or CNN, but it implies that
    the Soviets do not consider 200-300 days in space to be a 'long'
    mission.
    
    I expect that there will a lot of TV material from the Soviets this
    week, building up to the 4th. Since Turner has the exclusive rights
    to anything he can pick up from the Soviet comsats, it may be worth
    paying attention to CNN this week (fwiw, I've found the 8-8:30 eastern
    time slot the most likely time for space news).
    
    I wonder if they are ready for another Energia test this week. Saturday
    launches are very rare in the Soviet program (only 6 Saturday launches
    in 1986).
    
    On the subject of various notes about the dawn of the space age... I
    recommend reading 'The Heavans and the Earth (A political history of
    the Space Age)' by Walter A. McDougall. Its fairly heavy going but it
    gives an account of the early space age (both the US and Soviet
    programs) from a different point of view than the typically engineering
    stance. It is very interesting to read hos account of the
    Vanguard/Explorer decisions and post Sputnik hysteria and then reread
    Von Braun's account. They fit together well. I was very surprised to
    learn that a number of senior officials were hoping the Soviets would
    launch first, for legitimate reasons.
    
    gary 

    The Kettering has picked up TLM from BIO-SAT on 239.5 MHz NBFM

        only on north bound bp[asses, i
    Bio-sat is expected to stay up for 14 days and has amongst other
    gbuess two monkeys
    
    john
    

    	What does this have to do with the Topic?
    
    	Larry
    

    	All I have to say on this, the thirtieth anniversary of the
    Space Age (in regards to SPUTNIK 1 being launched into Earth orbit),
    that all of the space-faring nations (and *all* nations in general
    for that matter) better start *cooperating* in humanity's expansion
    into space, or we will never reach the stars.  In fact, the whole
    human race might just come to a complete stop if we don't start using
    some common sense and pool our resources for the common good.
                     
    	I'm sorry I could not have given a more optimistic statement
    on this anniversary, but recent space events have made this so.
    
    	Larry
                                                                 

    re priors
    
    I remember the day the Sputnic went up. I was just married at the
    time and was rejoicing with my bride of two months when I heard
    how the U.S. had been aced. My rejoicing went to gloom and I was
    rather not myself for a week.
    
    Seeing that dreadful cover on one of the weekly mags, of a Soviet
    Proton rocket *working*. Damn! Its like a bad flashback.
    
    Like almost everyone in "Star Wars (the movie please)" says, I have
    a bad feeling about this. Unless we get on the stick rapidomente,
    we are going to go down the same flush tube of history as did Portugal.
    They lead Western man in the exploration of the Ocean Sea and they
    ended up nowhere. Damn!
    

    I was at KSC on Sunday, Oct. 4, and took both the Red (VAB/LC 39)
    and the Blue (Canaveral AFS) bus tours.  There was no acknowledgement
    of the anniversary until I mentioned it to the respective drivers at
    the end of each tour (accompanied by an elbow in the ribs from the
    SO), nor was any comment made at the LC 26 blockhouse tour, even
    though the subject there was our response to Sputnik (Explorer 1).
    
    Sigh.
    
    BTW, you guys should see the Burroughs guidance computer and associated
    equipment at LC 26.  Reminds me of every episode of the Outer Limits I 
    ever saw; all we needed was some CO2 fog for effect.

    I'm not sure if it is the same model that you saw, but the Burroughs
    system built to guide Atlas has an ashtray built into the operator's
    console.
    
    gary

    The Oct 87 issue of 'Soviet Life' includes a few space articles
    commemorating the 30th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1.
    
    There is a retrospective article, an article on Tsander, an article
    on X-ray and gamma ray observatories (Radioastron, Granat and Gamma
    1 along with the Rentgen (sic) on Mir) and nice big photo of Energia.
    
    gary

        
    	On the subject of anniversarys, the twentieth anniversary of
    the Apollo 11 flight is less than two years away.  I expect by
    that time the Soviet program will be flying the shuttle/Energia
    system to their space station.  With the momentum they have, I expect
    to see a lot more from them in materials processing, space medicine
    and so on by that time.  I expect that this will reap as much national
    prestige benefits for them as the moon landing did for us.  In twenty
    years the tables will have completely turned.
    
    	This is not bad.  The Soviets have as much right to the rewards
    of space as we do.  Their program seems to be doing good work and
    there is a lot of work to be done to move mankind off the planet.
    What is bad is our decision not to do our share of the work.  Our
    program peaked with Apollo and since that time we, as a nation,
    have been confused about space, and our program shows it.
    
    	Everyone in this conference wants to go into space.  There are
    lots of objective reasons for a space program, (I don't have to
    give them here, I'd be preaching to the choir), but what about the
    feelings that bring hundreds of people out for a launch, or to watch
    the shuttle land.  I think lot's of people want to go.  Maybe only
    a fraction actually would, but the pull is still there.  A lot of
    the feelings, and tragedy about Christa McAullif springs from the
    fact that she was just a regular person who wanted to go and actually
    got the chance.
    
    Any program has to be sold.  Apollo was sold on the basis of paranoia.
    If the Soviet program is really successful, that approach might work
    again but I hope it doesn't go that way.  The program needs a
    philosophy that has 'legs', that can make the taxpayer beleive there
    is a return for him.  Space commercialization is a step, but I beleive
    the ultimate return is the offer that someday, you, Joe T. Taxpayer
    will get to ride the beast and see the whole planet at one time.
    
        
    To spend the kind of money that a healthy program
    requires there has to be a  is a pull
    that I feel anyway,  Why
    is that?

    So Jarvis was not a regular person? How about the civilian scientists
    from NASA and ESA, the various engineers from manufacturers,
    congressmen and guest astronauts that accompanied satellite launches?
    Most of these people are not career astronauts. They were either
    regular people doing their jobs which happened to need access to
    LEO or, in some cases, tourists.
    
    Sorry to flame, but I get real tired of the idea that McAuliffe
    was the first 'regular person' in space.
    
    gary
    
    p.s. although I occasionally bounce from node to node, NAC:: isn't
    one of them... I'm not talking to myself, at least not here :-)

    Imagine my chagrin.  I was trying hard to get that note, (.11), right
    and I left garbage at the bottom and forgot to sign it.  (sigh).
    
    re.12 > They were either regular people doing their jobs which happened
            to need access to LEO or, in some cases, tourists.
    
    Right!  Nasa was selling the shuttle as the "space truck" that was
    going to give everyone access to space.  A good democratic approach.
    But it didn't work!
    
    I deserve the flame about McAuliffe, my thinking wasn't clear.
    
    What I'm trying to get to is that the twentieth(!) anniversary of 
    the first manned landing on the moon is not far away.  The increased
    public awareness of space might be used to help gain acceptance for a
    new space program.  This might be a good time to get clear about
    where we want to go and then figure out how to make the program
    appeal to as many people as possible.
    
    Mike H.
                                        

From: [email protected] (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 20 Oct 87 00:50:00 GMT
 
Subject:  The View from 1969
 
    On a vacation trip, I happened into an antique store and noticed a
copy of LIFE magazine, July 15, 1969 (cover price 50 cents!) with the
headline "What's Beyond Our Flag on the Moon?".  Recalling several
comments on what the view had been like "way back then", I thought it
would be interesting to find out first hand what the popular press was
saying at the height of APOLLO.  Turns out it is not *quite* the
popular press viewpoint:  The text of the article is by Arthur C.
Clarke.  I thought the net might be interested in a few highlights
from the article. 
 
    "When a SATURN V soars spaceward on four thousand tons of thrust,
it signifies more than a triumph of technology.  It opens the next
chapter of Evolution.  No wonder that the drama of a launch engages
our emotions so deeply." 
 
    "Once we have gained a foothold on our single natural satellite -
a world as large as Africa...we will establish permanent bases there."
 
    "Yet our Moon's Greatest value may be as a stepping-stone to more
distant worlds.  Here, close to Mother Earth, we will perfect the
skills needed for the conquest of Mars and Mercury, and the many moons
that orbit giant Jupiter, ringed Saturn." 
 
    "If the Moon did not exist, the APOLLO program would still be
necessary - to establish the manned "space stations" of the 1970s." 
 
    "[the need for repairing satellites in orbit]...Such reuseable
vehicles (perhaps stubby, winged ships that can land at ordinary
airfields) are already on the drawing boards.  Then will be the DC-3's
of the Early Space Age - for they will herald the true dawn of
interplanetary commerce."  [Accompanying this is a painting of a space
station made out of what I am fairly sure are meant to be SATURN V
booster stages.  In the background is a shuttle.  It looks only
remotely like the actual Space Shuttle (prettier but less practical).
Ironically, it bears the number "4" rather than a name.] 
 
    There really is not much to this piece.  It is printed in large
type and would seem to be more a vehicle for the (rather nice) three
page painting of the major figures in the APOLLO project.  All of
Clarke's words are as true today as they were in 1969, only the
timetables have changed.  Of course, now the Soviets have a more
advanced space exploration timetable.  The only date Clarke attempts
almost came true:  SKYLAB went into Earth orbit in 1973; but then the
only U.S. space station so far came down six years later. 
 
                                   -- R. David Murray
                                      DRL Computing Facility
                                      University of Pennsylvania

From: [email protected] (Glenn Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans
Date: 6 Nov 87 15:53:51 GMT
 
    For the Soviets, the October month started off by holding a three
day international forum in Moscow to celebrate the thirtieth
anniversary of SPUTNIK 1's flight.  This series of lectures, combined
with the subsequent International Space Federation conference in Great
Britain starting October 12, revealed a considerable amount of
information about the Soviet's future space plans. 

    First it was stated that their cosmonauts have been doing landing
tests with their space shuttle, using jet engines on the test vehicle.
There have been problems with the control system which will delay
their first launch test until 1989.  Apparently they will be doing
about four unmanned launches first, much to the annoyance of the
cosmonaut corps.  Also, they have given a tentative schedule for their
large ENERGIA launches, with the next one being planned for early 1988
(they want no repeat of the problems with the last launch).  According
to some reports that I received third hand from visitors to both
conferences, the USSR is intending to launch some seventy ENERGIA
class boosters between now and the end of this century, building up to
8-9 launches in 1999.  During the same period, their space shuttle
take-offs will increase to four times annually.  The ENERGIA is
apparently designed to be a nearly fully reuseable launcher, with the
LH/LO engine section of the core stage being detachable to be returned
to Earth by some means (possibly their shuttle).  Growth versions of
ENERGIA will move from the four strap-on, side cargo carrier version
sent up this year, to six and eight strap-on, axial cargo launchers. 
The largest version will carry up to 215 tons (according to an
estimate in FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL magazine). One interesting point
there is that when the Mars missions were being looked at by NASA in
the early 1970s, they settled on 180-200 tons as the best size
launcher for such missions. 

    Their new very large space station core, called NOVY MIR, will go
up in 1996 on the advanced version of ENERGIA (6-8 strap-ons with the
payload on a vertical stack, which would suggest a core mass of
150-200 metric tons).  Since MIR was said to have a five-year design
lifetime, and Soviet researchers have stated that there will be a MIR
II, this suggests to me that in 1991-92 a replacement will be launched
that will be similar to the current space station.  In addition, they
have talked about a second observer and technical STAR module (the
10-20 ton additions that fit on the side port of MIR), which will be
operational concurrent with their older versions.  This is consistent
with them operating two MIR type stations in the early 1990s before
the new system comes on stream. 

    The COSMOS 1887 biological satellite, launched on September 29,
had an eventful fourteen-day mission.  During its flight, one of the
two monkey's on board managed to get one of its arms lose from the
straps holding it, and began pushing all the buttons in sight.  By
accident (and not - the Soviets assured us - due to monkeying around)
the COSMOS spaceship proceeded to land some 2,000 miles off course,
making some delay in the retrieving of the data.  The monkeys are in
fine shape now. 

    The first event in manned flight this month was the October 24
breaking of the official manned space endurance record by Yuri
Romanenko on board MIR.  By exceeding 260 days, he has currently been
in orbit over ten percent longer than the previous record holders: 
The SOYUZ T-10B crew 237 mission on board SALYUT 7 in October of 1984
(set by Leonid Kizim, Validimir Soloyev, and Oleg Atkov).  On October
25, Romanenko exceeded one full year of accumulated time in orbit,
while on November 4 he exceed Kizim's record for total space time. 
Indeed, the length of this mission is best illustrated by the 93 days
Alexander Alexadrov has accumulated since he replaced Alexander
Laveikin on July 29.  That time, which exceeded the longest US mission
to date (SKYLAB 4, 1974), is on top of the 149 days he spent in the
SOYUZ T-9/SALYUT 7 mission of 1983. 

    Currently the crew has just finished unloading the PROGRESS 32
cargo craft (the thirteenth vehicle to dock to MIR).  Sometime this
winter, the new air lock module will be launched.  This will initially
dock axially on MIR, but it has another port on its rear that will
take a SOYUZ, and also has the manipulator arm that will move it to
the side port of the docking ball on MIR.  Your editor personally
feels that this will be used to move a SOYUZ to the side port to allow
a docking of three spacecraft to MIR at the same time.  The Soviets
have talked about the final growth version of MIR containing crews of
six to nine people, which would require three SOYUZs.  Also that
having the air lock dock axially means that it can stay there without
blocking the front port until the second side docking module is ready.
This will minimize the time during which only one module is on the
side of MIR - a relatively unstable situation. 

    A rather strange happening occurred on October 26 when the Soviets
showed on Moscow TV a special program that detailed many of their past
space failures.  According to both the British Broadcast Corporation
(BBC) and Radio Moscow, this program first reported the number of
Soviet rocket scientists that were sent to Siberia and the damage that
was done to their program by that event.  Apparently they also showed
a number of film clips of the earlier launch failures.  One
interesting question that I would like to ask of anyone who saw this
program - did it show anything of the old 1970s G booster (their
SATURN class Moon rocket that failed three times according to most
researchers).  This is all part of a series of programs that the
Soviet government has been giving in the past week revealing the
darker pages of the past seventy years of the USSR.  Maybe with this
we can finally find out some of the things we have always suspected
about the Soviet space program's past operations (e.g., did they
really have someone ready to beat APOLLO 8 to lunar orbit in 1968?). 

    Sorry this report is both long and not as timely as I could wish.
Unfortunately our VAX [Uh oh!] has been having significant problems in
the past month, making it impossible for me to send any reports out
until now (and I was off on some trips the month before). 
 
                                               Glenn Chapman
                                               MIT Lincoln Lab

Seems that I heard a hint once that a Saudi prince who accompanied a
satellite on a shuttle as payload specialist was actually pretty
useless, and got in the way a lot. regardless of the truth of this
incident, how regular are these regular people? how much training
does it take to be useful? to merely stay out of the way?

    re .10
    
    Countries sending up comsats on shuttle used to get a 'free' astronaut
    slot on the same flight. I don't know wjat the costs involved were,
    but Australia turned its slot down saying it was too expensive
    (training?).
    
    On one of the flights with congressman on board, they had him standing
    in front of a window blocking the sun. A comment was heard on the
    downlink to the effect that they had at last found a use for him...
    
    I suspect that a lot of the training is on how to stay out of the
    way.
    
    gary

From: [email protected] (Glenn Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Re: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans.
Date: 20 Nov 87 23:46:34 GMT
 
    In my posting on the GREAT SOVIET SPACE DISASTERS TV program the
Soviets showed I suggested: 
 
> Maybe with this we can finally find out some of the things we have
> always suspected about the Soviet program past operations (e.g., did
> they really have someone ready to beat APOLLO 8 to lunar orbit in 1968).
 
    Henry Spencer suggested in a reply on the November 19 Space Digest
that: 
 
> (a) Nobody seriously doubts that the ZOND circumlunar missions in 1968 
> were unmanned SOYUZ flights, and (b) the Soviets openly stated that a 
> manned circumlunar mission was planned for late 1968.  It sure sounds 
> like they meant to do it.
 
    Sorry Henry, I have meet a lot of people who do not believe that
the Soviets where anywhere near a manned circumlunar mission.  As an
example, look at the article published in the JOURNAL OF THE
INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY annual issue on the Soviet program (July?),
where the author denies the existence of the Soviet manned lunar
program, and the big SATURN class G booster.  He goes on to say that
suggest that the new statements of a big Soviet booster being on the
pad will soon give way to statements that it has been been withdrawn
due to development problems - that being written just as their new big
ENERGIA rocket booster was being launched, and published four months
after its first flight. 

    I was referring to the more narrow question:  Was a manned ZOND
(SOYUZ) craft on the launch pad in early December, 1968, ready to go
for a circumlunar launch just before the APOLLO 8 mission did the
same?  In other words, did the U.S.S.R. come within weeks of beating
the U.S.A. there?  There has been much evidence for that, but no real
Soviet documents on it released to date. 
 
   Also with respect to the Harry Stine opinion mention by Henry:
 
> Harry Stine's opinion, which he says has recently been
> confirmed by the Soviets, is that SOYUZ 1 went up on a PROTON (For
> those who do not remember, SOYUZ 1 crashed, killing its pilot; the
> official explanation was that the parachute straps tangled).  Stine says
> that PROTON gives its payloads a very rough ride and that SOYUZ 1 was in
> trouble from the start because of that.
 
    None of the observers of the Soviet program that I have talked to
believe Stine on this.  My own arguments are that in 1967 when this
happened, the PROTON had been launched just four times (if my memory
serves me - I do not have my data book here), the most recent of which
had failed.  The booster was also being changed from a SL-9 two stage
version to the SL-12 3 stage.  Also, the payload capabilities of the
PROTON was 2-3 times that needed to send up SOYUZ 1, especially with
only one crewman on board.  Why send up the first manned test flight
of your new capsule on a new booster that was having problems?
Especially one that was not in full production and hence of limited
supply.  Also, all their previous unmanned tests of the SOYUZ had
taken place on their standard A-2 (Sapwood) booster, the launcher that
sent up their VOSTOK missions, and has been used on all SOYUZS since then. 

    The Soviets have always tended to be very conservative in their
manned systems; it would be a real break for them to take such a
chance.  By comparison, the suggested circumlunar flight with a ZOND
modification of the SOYUZ design had been preceded by not only
unmanned tests, but even tests with animals.  Sorry, until I see real
Soviet publications of SOYUZ 1 being on the PROTON, or some of the
real acknowledged experts agreeing with this, I remain unconvinced. 

    All of this really indicates the type of problems which the new
openess in the Soviet program may answer, if they really do start to
reveal what has gone on with their space program in the past. 
    
                                             Glenn Chapman
                                             MIT Lincoln Lab.

Progress - 33 carried a special cargo in celebration of the 
30th Anniversary.  It carried 1000 letters.  The Letters when
return to earth will have 4 postmarks on them.  I had trouble
copying the Tass news so I only got 3 of the 4 post marks
1st ????
2nd the day Progress 33 was launched
3rd in space on the MIR complex
4th when return to ground with the crew of MIR a landlover postmark

and the letters will also contain a signature of a cosmonauts
    
John

    

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NSS press release: Soviet Space Program.
Date: 14 Jan 88 23:44:00 GMT
 
		Background Information
 
		Date:	20 December 1987
	      Number:	BI8703
	   Reference:	PR8703
 
		Soviet Space Plans After MIR
 
    (Note to editors:  Please credit Art Bozlee and Seattle L5/1
Chapter Newsletter if used in full) 
 
    With the launch of the Soviet Type-L (ENERGIA) booster on May 15,
1987, the long range future plans of the Soviet conquest of space
entered a new era.  In contrast to the usual secretive nature of
Soviet efforts many details of future programs were recently revealed
in a series of startling announcements.  Contrary to some ill-informed
Western reports, the Soviets are very actively working on a reusable
space shuttle to compete with the West.  The Soviets confirmed in
early October of this year that cosmonauts crew have been conducting
flight tests of the shuttle from the 15,000 foot runway at the
cosmodrome at Tyuratam. 
 
    For these early flight tests two 20,000 pound thrust jet engines
have been installed to supplement the two jet engines the space-rated
shuttle carries.  After takeoff from the runway the vehicle is flown
to an altitude where the cosmonauts can then practice the difficult
approach and landing sequence.  For these tests two cosmonauts are
flying the orbiter. 
 
    First flight of the Soviet shuttle is expected in late 1988 or
early 1989.  One report stated the first flight test would be
unmanned, a decision not well received in the cosmonaut corps. 
Problems in developing the digital flight control system may have
prompted the decision for an early unmanned test flight. 
 
    The booster for the Soviet shuttle is the Type-L vehicle, called
ENERGIA by the Soviets is by some margin the most powerful rocket
system ever successfully flown, dwarfing even the might SATURN V the
US used in the APOLLO program.  ENERGIA stands 200 feet (60 meters)
tall, 65 feet (20 meters) across the four strap on booster rockets,
and weighs an awesome 4,400,00 pounds (2,000 metric tons).  Liftoff
thrust is 8,280,000 pounds, compared with 7.5 million pounds for the
SATURN V. 
 
    Unlike the US Shuttle, all of the ENERGIA booster is recoverable,
and thus reusable.  About two minutes after launch the four strap on
boosters separate from the core.  They are then lowered to Earth by a
parachute system carried in two pods mounted on the forward and aft
section of each booster.  After the core booster completes its mission
it breaks into three sections for recovery.  One section carries the
expensive and delicate booster engines, a second parachute system
recovers the fuel tank structure, and the third section recovered are
the liquid oxygen tanks.  The payload, either the shuttle orbiter, or
a cylindrical payload container then goes into orbit propelled by its
own internal engines.  For the first flight test of ENERGIA last May
this recovery system was not used. 
 
    The engines of ENERGIA represent another major advance for Soviet
engineers.  The four main engines in the core booster burn liquid
hydrogen, a first for the Soviet Union.  Each engine has one thrust
chamber, and delivers 400,000 pounds (200 metric tons) thrust.  The
strap on boosters employ a single engine with four thrust chambers
burning liquid oxygen and kerosene.  The use of liquid fuel boosters
is a safer and more sophisticated technology than the solid fuel
boosters that destroyed the Space Shuttle CHALLENGER in 1986. 
 
    Computer science has also taken a long stride for the Soviets on
ENERGIA.  Automated ground checkout equipment has been incorporated in
a Soviet booster design for the first time.  This equipment greatly
speeds the ground testing of the vehicle prior to launch. 
 
    The biggest question regarding ENERGIA and the shuttle is what
missions are planned for them.  Aside from the ability to lift either
a shuttle or 220,000 pounds into low Earth orbit (LEO), several other
missions are seen as very probably by Soviet planners. 
 
    The first of these difficult and spectacular missions could very
well be a manned mission to the planet Mars.  Several cosmonauts have
stated for the record they expect to go to Mars in the early to mid
1990s.  While landing on the surface of the planet is not seen as a
high probability, at least one mission model is regarded as reasonable
by Western analysts.  A landing on one of the two moons of Mars, most
probably Phobos, would offer cosmonauts a secure base from which they
could send automated landers, rovers, and sample return missions to
the surface of Mars, and manage them via teleoperations. 
 
    Several Soviet officials have also spoken openly of manned lunar
landings.  After APOLLO 11 in 1969, the Soviets publicly stated they
were no longer interested in manned lunar landing, preferring to put
their efforts into unmanned probes of the Moon, and their manned space
station program. 
 
    However, Soviet space literature and interviews with defectors
involved in the Soviet space program state work on a lunar module
intended for manned lunar landings was being developed as late as
1978.  It seems reasonable to assume that work has continued.  It is
certainly not impossible we could see the hammer and sickle flying over
the barren lunar plains as soon as the early 1990s. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!orstcs!mist!ruffwork
Subject: Sagdeyev Says "Russia is losing its space lead!"
Posted: 7 Nov 88 00:07:58 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University - CS - Corvallis, Oregon
 
    From the New York Times Nov. 5th, 1988: page 3.
	[partial quote without permission]
 
	"Soviet Scientist Faults Space Bureaucrats"
		--by Celestine Bohlen
 
    A leading Soviet space scientist, in a frank and critical speach,
has warned that the Soviet space program is in danger of losing its
edge because the scientific establishment still values bureaucratic
titles over scientific expertise. 
 
    "Unfortunately, one must admit that for the most part, in the
Academy of Sciences, space research is now conducted at the level of
figureheads," said the scientist Roald Z. Sagdeyev, 55 who is leaving
his post as the director of the Institute of Space Research.  "Thus we
are now losing our leading position in space to a significant degree,
and not only in the Academy of Sciences." 
 
	[...about 15 column inches deleated...]
 
    In this article Sagdeyev also nominated Andrei Sakharov to the
academy's governing board.  He also noted that the Politburo has
supported returning Sakharov's medals. 
 
    Well, so according to this they are falling *behind* where
Sagdeyev feels they should be in their space program?! 
 
--ritchey ruff	[email protected] -or- ...tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork
 

Article: 72441
From: [email protected] (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Amazing Milestone in Space History!
Date: 11 Sep 1993 00:20:37 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD
 
               October 16, 1957 (Sputnik I launch + 12 days)
               ---------------------------------------------
 
    An Aerobee rocket launched the first man-made body into interplanetary
    space from Alamogordo, New Mexico.  The experiment, conducted by
    Dr. Fritz Zwicky of Caltech, consisted of small artificial meteors 
    (coruscatives) which, at 90 kilometers altitude, were propelled
    to a velocity of 15 km/sec by means of a shaped charge.  The artificial
    meteors escaped the gravitational pull of Earth and went into solar
    orbit.
 
-Jeff Bytof

Article: 72717
From: [email protected] (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: moon shots
Date: 14 Sep 1993 20:20:09 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD
 
>How do we know? Was there telemetry on board the meteors, or were
>they trackable for radar long enough to determine that they were
>actually in solar orbit?
 
I'm trying to find a more complete reference to the above, but later
in the source where I got this it mentions that Zwicky was trying to
get funding to shoot 'fireworks' at the Moon so that the impacts could
be observed.  Not long afterwards others (notably S. Fred Singer)
proposed exploding nuclear weapons on the Moon for ostensibly
scientific purposes, but there may have also been an element of cold
war showoffsmanship in these proposals. 
 
-Jeff Bytof

Article: 72449
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Model rockets to orbit
Date: 12 Sep 93 21:12:28 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
 
> >How much does it cost to build an Estes rocket which is capable of putting
> >a payload -however small- into orbit?
 
> Well, you can't. Model rockets today, in moter sizes larger than D,
> often use the same fuel as everyone else: AP/aluminum.
 
Although not with Estes, it has been done.
 
In the mid 1960s a major rocketry club launched a rocket from a
weather balloon. The upper stage was a shaped charge of plastic
explosive that spit a bead of aluminum out at escape velocity. It is
now a small meteor in solar orbit. 
 
Although not instrumented, there was clandestine support in tracking
from a Nike missile site that verified the launch and subsequent
flight were on the predicted course, thus leading to the conclusion
that the BB sized bit of metal did indeed get injected into solar orbit. 
--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the   	 Dale M. Amon, The only libertarian
Betty Ford Home for         	   anarchist in Northern Ireland
the Politically Correct     	       [email protected]
=======================================================================

Article: 2544
From: [email protected] (Dick Buenneke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Vanguard-project...
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 1994 10:56:54 -0800
Organization: RAND -- Santa Monica, Calif.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Akseli Anttila)
wrote:
 
> I'm looking for people, organizations and publications interested in
> or dealing with the Vanguard, the American early satellite program.
 
You might want to start with "Vanguard: A History," by Constance McL.
Green and Milton Lomask (Washington, D.C, Smithsonian Institution
Press 1971). It also was  published in 1970  as part of NASA's history
series (NASA SP-4202). 
 
For a more critical review of the program, see Wernher von Braun and
Fredrick Ordway's "History of Rocketry and Space Travel" (New York:
1968) and Walter McDougall's "...the Heavens and the Earth," (New
York, Basic Books: 1985). McDougall details how the Eisenhower
administration chose a largely civilian Naval Research Lab team over
von Braun's rocket team to launch the first U.S. satellite -- and the
disasterous results. 
 
-- 
Richard H. Buenneke Jr.                    Tel: (310) 393-0411, Ext. 7382 
RAND Graduate School                       Fax: (310) 393-4818
1700 Main Street                             Internet: [email protected]
P.O. Box 2138                                  "All opinions are mine alone
Santa Monica, Calif.  90407-2138      All facts speak for themselves"