From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Pilots must be stupid? (Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:54:44 GMT

In article <ewright.725062372@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <zms23rp@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>The key words in your rebuttal are "...neither one is in contact
>>with the Earth."  Exactly.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-10 in
>>flight to a 747.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-1 to another
>>DC-1 in flight either.
>
>You can walk from one place to another carrying a four-ton
>cargo container?  On Earth?  I doubt it.
>
	Carry it while walking? no, but I can drive it.

>
>>Ever note how careful NASA is when it sends astronauts on EVA.  
>
>About as careful as divers probably were when logging 
>the first hundred man-hours on the first aqualungs.
>
	Again, I think I see were we are differing.  See my other
post on timeframes.  But to recap, I agree, after a couple thousand
more hours of EVA time, we'll have a lot more down.

>>They make sure they are somehow securred to the shuttle 
>>or the RMS so that they don't accidently drift off.
>
>Divers can drift off, too.  And they have to worry
>a *lot* more about sharks. :-)
>	
True... but astronauts have "Pigs in Space" to worry about.
A diver can swim back.  Or, with enough air (which they should
always have) resurface.  Astronauts are a bit more restricted.

BTW, as an aside, I seem to recall 1 mile or so as being a
useful limit for eyeball maneuvering in space. (i.e. you don't have
to worry about changing orbits trying to catch up to something,
you can jsut fly in a straight line.) Is this right?

>>And as for tranfering fuel while under way, my naval
>>knowledge is less, but I don't know too many groups of people
>>other than the military that do fuel transfers while in
>>motion.  It's generally a whole lot easier to come to a
>>dock, or at least anchor in calm water.
>
>So why do you assume that anyone who does inspace refueling
>will try to do it "under weigh" instead of docking first?
>
	Because I wasn't aware that DC-1 would have docking
capabilities.  If rather than insulting me, you had made this
clearer to begin with, I'd have shut up earlier.

>Oh, I forgot, we're assuming that the pilots are stupid. :-)
>
	No comment.

>
>>>We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either.  In-space refueling
>>>does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses
>>>properly.
>
>>	Only.  Given the current understanding I have of DC-1,
>>(and please, correct me wrong if I am) there is no mechanism
>>for a drogue or probe.  
>
>And the C-130's design didn't include cabbages.  That doesn't
>mean that if you needed cabbages someplace, you couldn't use
>the Herky bird to haul 'em there.  
>
>Cargo planes are versatile.
>
>
>>	Now, one way I see around this is to redesign the DC-1
>>so that two can accomplish a hard-docking of some sort.  
>
>What makes you think a DC-1 can't accomplish a hard docking.
>
	I wasn't aware that it could.  This I understand would
have to be an added capability?  HOw does it dock? through the
nose? or along the side?

>McDAC has artist's conceptions showing a DC-1 docked to
>space station Freedom.  That should tell you something.
>
	Thank you, it tells me a lot.

>
>
>
>No, we're being misquoted.  What we actually said was, "Lead,
>follow, or get the hell out of the way."
>
	Right, silly of me to object at all.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>