Xref: utzoo sci.space:30706 sci.space.shuttle:7905
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!uiucdcs!carroll
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: space news from March 18 AW&ST
Message-ID: <1991May21.192557.12347@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: ash.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
References: <1991May10.034743.29351@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May18.231158.24883@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991May20.034518.6909@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 19:25:57 GMT

In article <1991May20.034518.6909@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> The second alternative
> is just TOO LONG for a safe, productive mission (almost 3 years).
> Workshop recomended that "fast" missions be ignored. The 1000 day hohmann
> orbit requires not only less fuel, but provides a reasonable ammount of
> time on the surface (about 460 days.)

I'm missing this. The fast orbit takes a total of 34 months, or
roughly 1020 days. That's too long, but a 1000 day mission isn't?

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan