CEV PDQ

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Yes, there is a very, very good scientific base to think that
basic martian soil in chemically active. They did get some
chemical reaction on the Viking mission experiments.

Perhaps we need to send an experiment with proteins or something that will
produce biological-like responses at STP. Or even something as simple as a
bunch of test strips exposed briefly during a sandstorm, then photographed.

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote:

A Google search on virtually any topic will show a fair
number of believers in said topic.

Quantity does not equal quality.

...not to put too fine a point on it or anything, eh?

Hey, I remember using Yahoo to find out about nurseries when we were
expecting our first kid. Imagine my surprise when the first *157* links were
related to "infantilism". Imagine my additional surprise when none of them
involved plants. The only reason I checked out so many links was pure morbid
curiosity. I would have stopped around 200.

Fortunately, #158 did, in fact, deal with children's nurseries.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Only so long as EVA remains hard

You might call yours "EVA". Beady's is "The Cowminator", and mine is

$$#(*@^@- NO CARRIER

Have you tried Levetra for that NO CARRIER problem?

I hear it helps.

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same
author, Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray
tell, did you *read* them?). He merely notes that DART has autonomous
prox ops capability, and nowhere in his articles does he attempt to
connect DART with an ASAT program. He certainly provides no evidence
to support such a link. The third link references (and quotes) the
Jeffrey Lewis article.


Yes, I read them- although they do cover the same ground, they are
different articles written at different times about the same subject.

But using the exact same words. Go back and read them again; they all say
the exact same things about DART, using the exact same words. They may be
different articles written at different times, but the DART content is
strictly cut-and-paste.

If you read my posting, you'll not I said that the technology could be
used for foreign satellite inspection as well as destruction in a pure
ASAT role- the fact that Lewis lists DART in a discussion of military
operations in space regarding close proximity operations is indicative
of the fact that he realizes that such a capability has direct ASAT
implications.

The fact that technology from a civilian program might be useful for
military purposes doesn't mean the program is tied to the military per se,
especially when the military already has its own program.

“We actually think that
having three programs that
are funded right now to look at aspects of this issue are really going
to be a great help,” noted one NASA
official.

The fact that a NASA official thinks all three programs have civilian
applications does not mean that a DoD official would think that all three
have military applications. The lack of any quotes from DoD officials
concerning DART is most telling.

The same might be said by Air Force Officials, one of whom
told Space News that the “XSS-11
can be used as an ASAT weapon.”

Note that the USAF official didn't mention DART.

In the non-Lewis report cited, it is obvious that there is concern
over the capability that such programs as DART give in regards to ASAT
operations by arms control experts.

Note that even that report did *not* assert that DART was actually part of
an ASAT program.

I just wanted to show that the DART/ASAT connection didn't spring to
my mind alone.

Just because it wasn't your idea doesn't mean the idea has merit.

So does NASA funded research ever have military implications or direct
military ties? Of course it does- and that goes for any NASA program
that had any connection with the Air Force in particular. This is
nothing new- it goes clean back to the NACA days with the X-1's
design. There were plans to test fly an armed X-1 variant to determine
the effects of supersonic flight on the performance of machine guns
and cannons. In the realm of more recent programs by NASA itself, that
were done in conjunction with the military, there were the NASA/USAF
X-14 VTOL test aircraft, the NASA/USAF X-15 rocket-powered hypersonic
flight test aircraft, NASA/USAF X-24B lifting body aircraft, the
DARPA/NASA/USAF X-29 forward swept wing test aircraft, and the
NASA/DOD X-30 NASP. Most telling of all the NASA/military X-plane
programs was probably the X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability
demonstrator. In that case, the intention was to develop technologies
for future fighter aircraft right from the outset of the program.
In the non X-plane NASA/military arena, there are the NASA/Army S-72
Rotor Systems Research Aircraft, the NASA/Army XV-15 convertoplane
that led directly to the Osprey, the NASA/Navy C8A Augmentor Wing Jet
STOL aircraft, the Army/Navy/NASA VZ-3RY V/STOL, the development of
the cranked arrow, scissors, and supercritical wing designs by NASA
for military related projects...the list goes on and on.

In every single one of those examples, the partnership between NASA/NACA
and the DoD was openly known. There has been no acknowledgment of such a
partnership with DART - and no real reason to conceal it, either, since as
you say, NASA does openly do partnerships with DoD and the DoD is already
openly running its own XSS-11 program with the exact same objectives as
DART. In summary, the theory that DART is covertly an ASAT cover program
makes absolutely no sense.

So if the "A" in NASA that stands for "Aeronautics" has had long term
cooperation in so many military related programs, what makes you think
the "S" in NASA that stands for "Space" would be so loathe to do
military-related work?

I don't. I simply insist that not every NASA program is tied to the
military, and that if you wish to insist that a particular program is, that
you present evidence of the tie. So far you've presented no evidence
whatsoever, only accusations, logical fallacy, and vigorous handwaving.

The canceled NASA X-34 spaceplane had another co-sponser, you know:
http://www.air-and-space.com/2003102...20X-34%20left%
20side%20l.jpg

So the fact that some NASA programs are co-sponsored by DoD means they all
are? Great logic there, Pat.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same
author, Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray
tell, did you *read* them?).

Look, look! I found someone else writing about the debate regarding a
possible DART/ASAT connection whose last name isn't Lewis:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/04292005robot_mil.html

Right. Let's look at what he actually wrote:

"But is the test of a robot rendezvous satellite an unambiguous prelude to
introducing such weapons? Space experts contacted by MSNBC.com unanimously
dismissed such notions as unproven, unlikely and even in some cases
preposterous."

"Aside from the existence of several compelling non-weapon uses for such a
robot rendezvous capability, these experts pointed out that other nations
(such as Japan) and private corporations (such as Orbital Recovery Ltd.)
are pursuing parallel development projects, none with any weapons
application."

"Any hope of a logical resolution depends on a rational debate over U.S.
capabilities and ambitions in space. DART’s accidental contribution to this
debate will only make a bad situation worse."

Sure looks to me like he is debunking the idea of an actual connection, but
JimO is a regular, I'll let him speak for himself.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Henry Spencer wrote:
If memory serves, it is still the case that there are "black zones"
in the shuttle ascent trajectory where a multiple SSME failure is
not survivable, because the orbiter is too high and too slow to
reenter at an acceptably shallow angle.

If it doesn't have much horizontal speed, what's so bad about a steep
reentry angle?

If there were some way for a shuttle to kill *all* of its orbital
velocity at orbital altitude, couldn't it safely fall straight down
from orbital altitude? (Of course it would have to get up above stall
speed before landing, but that shouldn't be difficult.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Note that even that report did *not* assert that DART was actually part of
an ASAT program.

I dunno. The more you deny it, the more I begin to believe it.

:-)

--
Dave Michelson

Keith F. Lynch wrote:

If it doesn't have much horizontal speed, what's so bad about a steep
reentry angle?

If there were some way for a shuttle to kill *all* of its orbital
velocity at orbital altitude, couldn't it safely fall straight down
from orbital altitude? (Of course it would have to get up above stall
speed before landing, but that shouldn't be difficult.)

The air would get dense too quickly, and the vehicle would exceed
its structural limits.

Paul

On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:11:58 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

Armadillo was nowhere near flying any kind of manned vehicle by
the time Scaled Composites won the X-Prize and had just suffered
a failure that resulted in much lost time.

Partly because they'd backed off on their rush to do so, because they
knew that they wouldn't be able to get a site license for their
vehicle.

Mostly because they're vehicle kept crashing, exploding and otherwise
failing in spectacular fashion. The footage of that tank bouncing,
however, really ought to be included as an Easter Egg in Doom 4.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:34:16 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):


We understand your point Herb. WE JUST DISAGREE WITH IT! And putting
it in all caps with a bang on the end doesn't make it more valid, or
more persuasive.

And you still can't articulate why you disagree. I capitalized my
point because you insist on changing the subject and pretending not to
have seen the thesis statement.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/