HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
From: gpwysjd@gp.co.nz
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:15:57 +1200
Organization: GP Print Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand

Greetings,

In article <1992Sep28.160833.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov 
writes:
> 
[... deleted numbers ...]
> 
> Counting each individual human-flight ("warm seat") as a single ticket, this
> new flight will involve the 492nd to 598th "tickets to orbit".  The 338 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> tickets on American orbital missions are held by 189 individuals, including 
> 17 women (one non-US); the 160 tickets on Soviet/Russian vehicles are held
> by 93 individuals, including 3 women (one non-Soviet).

Question: Am I looking at a typo here :-)

	Or were there really 106 "tickets" on STS-47?

Seems to me that that is an awful lot of people to be putting into
space in one go, or maybe they were looking for a World Record of
number of people in space at one time ... :-)
> 
> -- 
> 
> "It is not the critic who counts...the credit belongs to the man who is 
> actually in the arena." -- Theodore Roosevelt 
> 
> Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
> 			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
--
Regards: Stephen J. Dixon           email: stephen@gpwd.gp.co.nz
                              _____  Electronic Publishing
22 Karaka St                 /    /  GP Print
Wainui-o-mata 6008          /    /   Private Bag
New Zealand                / GP /    Wellington 6020, NZ
+64  4  564 2439          /____/     +64  4  473 7320 x8839
    <--  Houses and wealth are inherited from parents,
           But a prudent wife is from the LORD. (Prv19:14)  -->
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:31:37 GMT

In article <Bv9tM0.LwC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.145843.6543@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
>>... heard that making the SRBs a one piece expendable rocket would come out
>>to be cheaper than the reusable o-ring SRB. It would be less complex, and it 
>>would not have any o-ring problems. Plus you wouldn't have to spend money on
>>retrieving it and cleaning the salt water out of it...
>
>There are two separate issues here.
>
>It has been seriously suggested that NASA is not really saving any money by
>recovering the SRBs, because the cost and complexity of refurbishing pretty
>well balances the cost of just building more, especially when you consider
>larger production runs.  The main value of refurbishment appears to be
>public relations rather than cost saving.  Given that, it's still a fairly
>reasonable thing to do.  I haven't seen any detailed analysis suggesting
>that NASA is actually losing much money on this choice.
>
>But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
>you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
>just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  The things are made in
>Utah and shipped to the Cape by rail; you can't *do* that with a one-piece
>design.  The production machinery makes them one segment at a time.  The
>cranes in the VAB stack them one segment at a time.  And *there is no
>one-piece design* available off the shelf -- at the very least, after
>setting up new production facilities and modifying cranes and etc., you'd
>have to test-fire a few one-piecers to make sure that casting that big
>a charge in one operation works consistently.  This isn't a simple change.
>
>You might be able to simplify things a little bit if the joints didn't
>have to come apart again afterwards, but even so, you really don't make
>changes to something as crucial as those joints without at least some
>test firings to confirm that you haven't made an awful mistake.


I heard of some suggestion that liquid propellant boosters could be used
to save on cost instead of solid boosters. There is a complexity problem
but as far as performance and several other issues were concerned the use
of liquid boosters had major benafits.  Anybody got the major facts here??


Achurist.

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,k12.chat.teacher
From: phrwc@warwick.ac.uk (Mr PJ Mahon)
Subject: Re: FUTURES with Jaime Escalante
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Summary: The USA isn't the ONLY space-faring nation!
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.135921.17987@pbs.org> tflavell@pbs.org writes:
>
>109: PUTTING MAN IN SPACE -- From that day in 1969 when man
>first walked on the moon, the world has marveled at America's
>dominance in space exploration.  We are now committed to
 ^^^^^^^^^
>manning the first space station -- a remarkable
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>accomplishment of engineering and imagination.  Astronaut

        Has anyone here ever heard of Mir, Salyut or Skylab for that
matter? I'm also none too sure that the ex-Soviets have been marvelling
at America's "dominance" for the last 23 years...

        Pat Mahon
        Physics Dept.
        Univ. of Warwick
        COVENTRY U.K.
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:03:42 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)

In article <BvF45K.73A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>My question, who are the two females mentioned above who are neither US nor
>Soviet?

One Canadian, Roberta Bondar according to another poster, flew on the shuttle
(remember the Super Bowl coin flip?).  One Britisher, Helen Sharman, flew on a
Soyuz to Mir.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: pam@astro.as.utexas.edu (Pawel Moskalik)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:03:25 GMT
Organization: University of Texas, McDonald Observatory


  Two females (non US, non soviet) are Helen Sharman of Great Britain
and Roberta Bondar of Canada.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Wasps on shuttle?
From: niblack@bbs.mdcbbs.com
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:38:50 GMT
Organization: EDS, DELCO CHASSIS
Nntp-Posting-User: niblack


I have not been keeping up with the shuttles lately, but I am curious about how
all the animal life reacted on the last suttle flight (at least I think it was
the most recent flight).  Especially how the wasps built a nest in micro-grav.

Thanks,
Shawn
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:10:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1ad6tfINNjho@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>>... George Koopman's proposal to
>>build an HRB using Amroc's hybrid-rocket technology.  
>
>This one's new on me.  What is hybrid-rocket technology?

Hybrid rockets have one solid propellant and one liquid propellant.  The
usual combination is solid fuel and liquid oxidizer.  In Amroc's case,
the fuel is synthetic rubber and the oxidizer is liquid oxygen.  Getting
good mixing between fuel (or rather, breakdown products of fuel) and
oxidizer is allegedly tricky.

I've never been sold on the superiority of hybrids over liquid fuel, but
they're definitely better than solids -- safer to handle, easier to control,
stoppable and restartable, possibly even throttlable with good design.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re; Shuttle Ballast
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 01 Oct 92  21:28:00

Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey askss:
>Boy, *this* is intriguing.  What form does the ballast take?  Can
>we buy souvenir ballast that has flown into space?  Can NASA be
>persuaded to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?
  
Ken Jenks, responds
>Lead.  I don't know much more than that.  I can dig around if
>someone can think of a good reason why I should.
  
   There are two primary forms of ballast flown on shuttle flights
(as well a just moving payloads around in the payload bay or adding
small payloads such as GAS cans).
   As Ken said, lead is used.  2 vehicles have been modified to
allow the use of lead plates which are mounted to the aft
heatshield, near the main engines.  (Endeavor OV-105, and Columbia
(?) OV-102, if memory serves).
   Since we're trying to ballast center-of-gravity, you can get a
lot of movement of c.g. with minimal mass at the end of a long
moment arm.  The lead on the aft heat shield is the best solution
since the weight is about as far aft as you can get it, and you can
carry less mass to get a significant movement of the C.G.
   The other method of moving c.g. is to to add OMS propellants into
the OMS tanks.  Most missions don't require anywhere near the
propellant that can be loaded into the OMS pods.  So if the c.g.
needs to be moved aft, you can just load more propellant.  But,
since the OMS pods are not as far aft as the aft heat shield, you
need to add more mass to get the same effect.
    And I should also echo other comments that most of the shuttle
missions are front-heavy.  So you have to add mass in the back for
ballance.  And I keep seeing "improvements" that reduce launch mass
by removing it from the aft end or adding it into the crew module
area!  (Not exactly helpful when we have to ballast for c.g.
now....)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.00
From: dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (DICKENJD)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle Flight Manifest
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:28:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Hi... Does anyone have the current Shuttle Manifest? If someone
could either post it or e-mail it to me I would much appreciate 
it...

Thanks...

Jeremy
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Seeking Brad Mears
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:21:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalf.1992Oct5.172118.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

Is Brad Mears out there?  I would like to see (posted or by e-mail)
a copy of your Shuttle computer FAQs.  Efforts to e-mail you at 
bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov have been fruitless.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Treat your password like
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | your toothbrush.  Don't let
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | anybody else use it--
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and get a new one every
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | six months."  --Cliff Stoll
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg)
Subject: Re: SRB & Mac Portable...
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.134207.5664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>As in any aircraft, the CG affects the stability of the vehicle in
>aerodynamic (gliding) flight.  In the Shuttle, the CG must be within
>a very narrow band (a couple of inches) for the flight software to
>work properly.  This drives us to fly ballast on almost every flight.

Sounds like a serious danger if an emergency de-orbit should be required
in the middle of a mission...
-- 
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf 
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: manacsa@l13ff.jsc.nasa.gov (Gerry Manacsa)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.235747.15039@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
> 
> I read about more problems with the 0 rings today in the paper.
> 
> I am not saying its anyones fault..but isn't there a better
> solution then the 0 ring? Can't they redesign the boosters so they
> don't need that joint?
> 
> 
> --
>            Marshal Perlman <> Florida Institute of Technology 
>                     ***** perlman@zach.fit.edu ***** 
>                Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land
> 

The proposed (currently dead?) ASRM design does eliminate several of the 
field joints... this safety enhancement was one of its original selling
points.

=====================================================================
Gerry Manacsa
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions... nothing to do with my company whatsoever...
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Columbia, STS-52 crew practice
From: gpwrsjd@gp.co.nz
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:16:27 +1200
Organization: GP Print Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
Keywords: M113 practice
Summary: M113 question

HI shuttle fans,
A comment in the following article posted to sci.space

In article <1992Sep30.202220.17578@news.arc.nasa.gov>, 
	yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) posted:
>           KSC News Release No. 136-92
>           NOTES TO EDITORS:
>           COLUMBIA AT PAD 39-B, STS-52 COUNTDOWN TEST ON OCT. 1-2

	there was the following reference:

>                While here,  the crew will receive training in emergency es-
>           cape procedures at the launch  pad,  practice  driving  the  M113
>           tracked  vehicles  and  practice  flying  in the Shuttle Training
>           Aircraft.

What is the M113 and what is its purpose for shuttle crews (other than
for "training purposes", specifics please :-)?
My curiosity has been tweeked and is wanting an answer.

Any answers gratefully received. Also apologies if its in the of a FAQ
but I do not remember reading about it in the list.
FAQ list that I have has
	Last-modified: $Date: 92/04/15 19:57:17 $

--
Regards: Stephen J. Dixon           email: stephen@gpwd.gp.co.nz
                              _____  Electronic Publishing
22 Karaka St                 /    /  GP Print
Wainui-o-mata 6008          /    /   Private Bag
New Zealand                / GP /    Wellington 6020, NZ
+64  4  564 2439          /____/     +64  4  473 7320 x8839
    <--  Houses and wealth are inherited from parents,
           But a prudent wife is from the LORD. (Prv19:14)  -->
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:10:42 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond):
>[more rubbish deleted]
>Why does this guy remind me of Zippy the Pinhead?

``Are we in SPACE yet?''
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:00:54 GMT

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.141559.1696@gp.co.nz> gpwysjd@gp.co.nz writes:


>   > new flight will involve the 492nd to 598th "tickets to orbit".  The 338 
>				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   > 17 women (one non-US); the 160 tickets on Soviet/Russian vehicles are held
>   > by 93 individuals, including 3 women (one non-Soviet).

>   Question: Am I looking at a typo here :-)

>	   Or were there really 106 "tickets" on STS-47?

No, it's not a typo.  NASA has just taken up the common airline practice of 
"overbooking" :-)

My question, who are the two females mentioned above who are neither US nor
Soviet?

>The Boomers come of age.
>The Mission Commander was part of the "most people in a telephone
>booth" record and wanted to go one better. Rumour is that several
>"firsts" in space were simultaneously set by various combinations
>of people near the bottom of the pile ;-)

There was an interesting cartoon in the local paper.  You can guess the lead  
in.  The punch line was "Don't be rediculous Mark... Of course I didn't feel
the Earth move."

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
	 The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:23:14 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep29.141821.11852@cbnews.cb.att.com> nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby) writes:
>In a related topic, one of the reasons that the Stennis Space center, where
>they test rocket engines (all Saturn and Shuttle liquid fueld motors are
>tested there), is located where it is is so that they can move the parts BY
>BARGE over water...

Indeed, back when ASRM was still on track, there was a legal battle shaping
up over testing it at Stennis.  That was the obvious site -- convenient by
barge, NASA-owned, set up for big rocket tests -- but solids have never
been tested there, and the local farmers were Not Pleased about possible
toxic exhaust products.  (NASA owns the immediate area around the test
site, but a substantial area around that is "buffer zone", privately owned
but with NASA owning rights to non-agricultural development to ensure that
it doesn't happen.)  Probably a moot point now, though.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: Dave Dodson <dodson@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Originator: dodson@bach.convex.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:41:11 GMT
Reply-To: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Sep28.160833.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>STS-47 is the world's 151st manned orbital mission.  It's the 49th orbital
>mission of a US space shuttle, and the 50th manned STS launch (counting 51-L);
>it is the 25th mission since Return-to Flight, and the 78th US manned orbital
>flight overall; the USSR/CIS has made 73, plus two known launch aborts.  

Are you counting the lunar flights?  They all went into earth orbit, and
all but Apollo 13 entered lunar orbit as well.
From: peter.hunter@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Peter Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Video (PAL) from NASA Select
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:03:58 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

NASA Select's 'footprint' does not permit direct viewing in Australia, so we
miss all the goodies particularly when a Shuttle flight is doing
intereesting things (eg Intelsat recue, or upcoming HST repair).
I have a friend in Los Angeles who can tape stuff, but this is in NTSC
format whereas we need PAL in Australia.
Can anyone either convert/tape in PAL or advise me oof a cheap way of doing
the conversion as commercial companies here quote up to $1 per minute?


--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: Columbia, STS-52 crew practice
Keywords: M113 practice
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:01:54 GMT


RE: the launch tower basket escape system to the M113 armored vehicles.

If you ever have a chance to see the IMAX film "The Dream Is Alive", 
you'll get a first hand view of what it's like to come down those launch
tower escape baskets.  Just make sure you don't watch it on a full
stomach. Those who've seen the film firsthand will know what I mean. ;-)

- Ted Drude

P.S. If you watch the film closely,  you'll also notice in the M113s in the
background. 

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: barge
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:35:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.141821.11852@cbnews.cb.att.com> nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby) writes:
>In a related topic, one of the reasons that the Stennis Space center, where
>they test rocket engines (all Saturn and Shuttle liquid fueld motors are
>tested there), is located where it is is so that they can move the parts BY
>BARGE over water.  It was [a lot] more important for Saturn first stage
>testing.
>
>Neil Kirby

That was also one of the original siting requirements for the Manned
Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center): easy access to a
deep water port.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "The New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises 
      -- it is a set of challenges." -- John F. Kennedy
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Soviet space stations don't exist(was Re: FUTURES with Jaime Escalante)
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:10:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalf.1992Oct1.101041.1
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <gf8qbfgh@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, phrwc@warwick.ac.uk (Mr PJ Mahon) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.135921.17987@pbs.org> tflavell@pbs.org writes:
>>
>>109: PUTTING MAN IN SPACE -- From that day in 1969 when man
>>first walked on the moon, the world has marveled at America's
>>dominance in space exploration.  We are now committed to
>  ^^^^^^^^^
>>manning the first space station -- a remarkable
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>accomplishment of engineering and imagination.  Astronaut
> 
>         Has anyone here ever heard of Mir, Salyut or Skylab for that
> matter? I'm also none too sure that the ex-Soviets have been marvelling
> at America's "dominance" for the last 23 years...

We TOLD you about the sad state of America's science education. 
(Especially among copywriters for the Public Broadcasting System.) 
NOW maybe you'll believe us, Pat.


     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 2 Oct 92 07:50:43 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)

In article <1992Oct1.160937.22609@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16 (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
>In article 4939@news.eng.convex.com, dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes:
>> 
>> Are you counting the lunar flights?  They all went into earth orbit, and
>> all but Apollo 13 entered lunar orbit as well.
>
>I take it you don't count once around as an 'orbit'.  Apollo 13 did go around the
>moon; they certainly didn't stop halfway there and come back.

Flying by the moon doesn't constitute being in orbit around it.  As Dave Dodson
wrote, Apollo 13 never entered lunar orbit.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle