Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59497
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise

In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>> physics.
>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>> string theory?
>
>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>including the omni-present "black holes."
>
>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
no properties."
"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla

----
 ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
----

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59846
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 06/15 - Constants and Equations

Archive-name: space/constants
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:04 $

CONSTANTS AND EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATIONS

    This list was originally compiled by Dale Greer. Additions would be
    appreciated.

    Numbers in parentheses are approximations that will serve for most
    blue-skying purposes.

    Unix systems provide the 'units' program, useful in converting
    between different systems (metric/English, etc.)

    NUMBERS

	7726 m/s	 (8000)  -- Earth orbital velocity at 300 km altitude
	3075 m/s	 (3000)  -- Earth orbital velocity at 35786 km (geosync)
	6371 km		 (6400)  -- Mean radius of Earth
	6378 km		 (6400)  -- Equatorial radius of Earth
	1738 km		 (1700)  -- Mean radius of Moon
	5.974e24 kg	 (6e24)  -- Mass of Earth
	7.348e22 kg	 (7e22)  -- Mass of Moon
	1.989e30 kg	 (2e30)  -- Mass of Sun
	3.986e14 m^3/s^2 (4e14)  -- Gravitational constant times mass of Earth
	4.903e12 m^3/s^2 (5e12)  -- Gravitational constant times mass of Moon
	1.327e20 m^3/s^2 (13e19) -- Gravitational constant times mass of Sun
	384401 km	 ( 4e5)  -- Mean Earth-Moon distance
	1.496e11 m	 (15e10) -- Mean Earth-Sun distance (Astronomical Unit)

	1 megaton (MT) TNT = about 4.2e15 J or the energy equivalent of
	about .05 kg (50 gm) of matter. Ref: J.R Williams, "The Energy Level
	of Things", Air Force Special Weapons Center (ARDC), Kirtland Air
	Force Base, New Mexico, 1963. Also see "The Effects of Nuclear
	Weapons", compiled by S. Glasstone and P.J. Dolan, published by the
	US Department of Defense (obtain from the GPO).

    EQUATIONS

	Where d is distance, v is velocity, a is acceleration, t is time.
	Additional more specialized equations are available from:

	    ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/MoreEquations


	For constant acceleration
	    d = d0 + vt + .5at^2
	    v = v0 + at
	  v^2 = 2ad

	Acceleration on a cylinder (space colony, etc.) of radius r and
	    rotation period t:

	    a = 4 pi**2 r / t^2

	For circular Keplerian orbits where:
	    Vc	 = velocity of a circular orbit
	    Vesc = escape velocity
	    M	 = Total mass of orbiting and orbited bodies
	    G	 = Gravitational constant (defined below)
	    u	 = G * M (can be measured much more accurately than G or M)
	    K	 = -G * M / 2 / a
	    r	 = radius of orbit (measured from center of mass of system)
	    V	 = orbital velocity
	    P	 = orbital period
	    a	 = semimajor axis of orbit

	    Vc	 = sqrt(M * G / r)
	    Vesc = sqrt(2 * M * G / r) = sqrt(2) * Vc
	    V^2  = u/a
	    P	 = 2 pi/(Sqrt(u/a^3))
	    K	 = 1/2 V**2 - G * M / r (conservation of energy)

	    The period of an eccentric orbit is the same as the period
	       of a circular orbit with the same semi-major axis.

	Change in velocity required for a plane change of angle phi in a
	circular orbit:

	    delta V = 2 sqrt(GM/r) sin (phi/2)

	Energy to put mass m into a circular orbit (ignores rotational
	velocity, which reduces the energy a bit).

	    GMm (1/Re - 1/2Rcirc)
	    Re = radius of the earth
	    Rcirc = radius of the circular orbit.

	Classical rocket equation, where
	    dv	= change in velocity
	    Isp = specific impulse of engine
	    Ve	= exhaust velocity
	    x	= reaction mass
	    m1	= rocket mass excluding reaction mass
	    g	= 9.80665 m / s^2

	    Ve	= Isp * g
	    dv	= Ve * ln((m1 + x) / m1)
		= Ve * ln((final mass) / (initial mass))

	Relativistic rocket equation (constant acceleration)

	    t (unaccelerated) = c/a * sinh(a*t/c)
	    d = c**2/a * (cosh(a*t/c) - 1)
	    v = c * tanh(a*t/c)

	Relativistic rocket with exhaust velocity Ve and mass ratio MR:

	    at/c = Ve/c * ln(MR), or

	    t (unaccelerated) = c/a * sinh(Ve/c * ln(MR))
	    d = c**2/a * (cosh(Ve/C * ln(MR)) - 1)
	    v = c * tanh(Ve/C * ln(MR))

	Converting from parallax to distance:

	    d (in parsecs) = 1 / p (in arc seconds)
	    d (in astronomical units) = 206265 / p

	Miscellaneous
	    f=ma    -- Force is mass times acceleration
	    w=fd    -- Work (energy) is force times distance

	Atmospheric density varies as exp(-mgz/kT) where z is altitude, m is
	molecular weight in kg of air, g is local acceleration of gravity, T
	is temperature, k is Bolztmann's constant. On Earth up to 100 km,

	    d = d0*exp(-z*1.42e-4)

	where d is density, d0 is density at 0km, is approximately true, so

	    d@12km (40000 ft) = d0*.18
	    d@9 km (30000 ft) = d0*.27
	    d@6 km (20000 ft) = d0*.43
	    d@3 km (10000 ft) = d0*.65

		    Atmospheric scale height	Dry lapse rate
		    (in km at emission level)	 (K/km)
		    -------------------------	--------------
	    Earth	    7.5			    9.8
	    Mars	    11			    4.4
	    Venus	    4.9			    10.5
	    Titan	    18			    1.3
	    Jupiter	    19			    2.0
	    Saturn	    37			    0.7
	    Uranus	    24			    0.7
	    Neptune	    21			    0.8
	    Triton	    8			    1

	Titius-Bode Law for approximating planetary distances:

	    R(n) = 0.4 + 0.3 * 2^N Astronomical Units (N = -infinity for
	    Mercury, 0 for Venus, 1 for Earth, etc.)

	    This fits fairly well except for Neptune.

    CONSTANTS

	6.62618e-34 J-s  (7e-34) -- Planck's Constant "h"
	1.054589e-34 J-s (1e-34) -- Planck's Constant / (2 * PI), "h bar"
	1.3807e-23 J/K	(1.4e-23) - Boltzmann's Constant "k"
	5.6697e-8 W/m^2/K (6e-8) -- Stephan-Boltzmann Constant "sigma"
    6.673e-11 N m^2/kg^2 (7e-11) -- Newton's Gravitational Constant "G"
	0.0029 m K	 (3e-3)  -- Wien's Constant "sigma(W)"
	3.827e26 W	 (4e26)  -- Luminosity of Sun
	1370 W / m^2	 (1400)  -- Solar Constant (intensity at 1 AU)
	6.96e8 m	 (7e8)	 -- radius of Sun
	1738 km		 (2e3)	 -- radius of Moon
	299792458 m/s	  (3e8)  -- speed of light in vacuum "c"
	9.46053e15 m	  (1e16) -- light year
	206264.806 AU	  (2e5)  -- \
	3.2616 light years (3)	 --  --> parsec
	3.0856e16 m	 (3e16)  -- /


Black Hole radius (also called Schwarzschild Radius):

	2GM/c^2, where G is Newton's Grav Constant, M is mass of BH,
		c is speed of light

    Things to add (somebody look them up!)
	Basic rocketry numbers & equations
	Aerodynamical stuff
	Energy to put a pound into orbit or accelerate to interstellar
	    velocities.
	Non-circular cases?


NEXT: FAQ #7/15 - Astronomical Mnemonics

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59848
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions

Archive-name: space/controversy
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:06 $

CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS

    These issues periodically come up with much argument and few facts being
    offered. The summaries below attempt to represent the position on which
    much of the net community has settled. Please DON'T bring them up again
    unless there's something truly new to be discussed. The net can't set
    public policy, that's what your representatives are for.


    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS

    Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
    have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
    microfilm.

    The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
    is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
    guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
    have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
    from.

    By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
    the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
    sheet design.


    WHY DATA FROM SPACE MISSIONS ISN'T IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE

    Investigators associated with NASA missions are allowed exclusive access
    for one year after the data is obtained in order to give them an
    opportunity to analyze the data and publish results without being
    "scooped" by people uninvolved in the mission. However, NASA frequently
    releases examples (in non-digital form, e.g. photos) to the public early
    in a mission.


    RISKS OF NUCLEAR (RTG) POWER SOURCES FOR SPACE PROBES

    There has been extensive discussion on this topic sparked by attempts to
    block the Galileo and Ulysses launches on grounds of the plutonium
    thermal sources being dangerous. Numerous studies claim that even in
    worst-case scenarios (shuttle explosion during launch, or accidental
    reentry at interplanetary velocities), the risks are extremely small.
    Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP 19B2
    RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus B weather
    satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered after 5 months
    with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar
    module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG heat source, which
    was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet deep Tonga Trench in
    the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant materials of the RTG are
    expected to prevent release of the fuel for a period of time equal to 10
    half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or about 870 years [DOE 1980].

    To make your own informed judgement, some references you may wish to
    pursue are:

    A good review of the technical facts and issues is given by Daniel
    Salisbury in "Radiation Risk and Planetary Exploration-- The RTG
    Controversy," *Planetary Report*, May-June 1987, pages 3-7. Another good
    article, which also reviews the events preceding Galileo's launch,
    "Showdown at Pad 39-B," by Robert G. Nichols, appeared in the November
    1989 issue of *Ad Astra*. (Both magazines are published by pro-space
    organizations, the Planetary Society and the National Space Society
    respectively.)

    Gordon L Chipman, Jr., "Advanced Space Nuclear Systems" (AAS 82-261), in
    *Developing the Space Frontier*, edited by Albert Naumann and Grover
    Alexander, Univelt, 1983, p. 193-213.

    "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, Health Physics,
    Vol 32 (may) 1977, page 359-379.

    NUS Corporation, Safety Status Report for the Ulysses Mission: Risk
    Analysis (Book 1). Document number is NUS 5235; there is no GPO #;
    published Jan 31, 1990.

    NASA Office of Space Science and Applications, *Final Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)*, (no serial number or
    GPO number, but probably available from NTIS or NASA) June 1990.

    [DOE 1980] U.S.  Department of Energy, *Transuranic Elements in the
    Environment*, Wayne C.  Hanson, editor; DOE Document No.  DOE/TIC-22800;
    Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1980.)


    IMPACT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ON THE OZONE LAYER

    From time to time, claims are made that chemicals released from
    the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are responsible
    for a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer. Studies
    indicate that they in reality have only a minute impact, both in
    absolute terms and relative to other chemical sources. The
    remainder of this item is a response from the author of the quoted
    study, Charles Jackman.

    The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the
    stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was
    organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies.  The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia
    (NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space
    Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and
    Environmental Research, Inc.).  The effort was to look at the effects
    of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere.

    The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine:

       Industrial sources:    300,000,000 kilograms/year
	  Natural sources:     75,000,000 kilograms/year
	  Shuttle sources:	  725,000 kilograms/year

    The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are
    launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the
    total stratospheric chlorine sources.

    The effect on ozone is minimal:  global yearly average total ozone would
    be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability
    associated with volcanic activity and solar flares.

    The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed
    by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally
    averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and
    Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible.  The launch
    schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be
    increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about
    the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons
    do at the present time.

    Theoretical results of this study have been published in _The Space
    Shuttle's Impact on the Stratosphere_, MJ Prather, MM Garcia, AR
    Douglass, CH Jackman, M.K.W. Ko and N.D. Sze, Journal of Geophysical
    Research, 95, 18583-18590, 1990.

    Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch,
    Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
    Greenbelt, MD  20771

    Also see _Chemical Rockets and the Environment_, A McDonald, R Bennett,
    J Hinshaw, and M Barnes, Aerospace America, May 1991.


    HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

    If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
    minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
    breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
    watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
    Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
    experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
    immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
    not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

    Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
    [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
    start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
    lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
    you're dying. The limits are not really known.

    References:

    _The Effect on the Chimpanzee of Rapid Decompression to a Near Vacuum_,
    Alfred G. Koestler ed., NASA CR-329 (Nov 1965).

    _Experimental Animal Decompression to a Near Vacuum Environment_, R.W.
    Bancroft, J.E. Dunn, eds, Report SAM-TR-65-48 (June 1965), USAF School
    of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas.


    HOW THE CHALLENGER ASTRONAUTS DIED

    The Challenger shuttle launch was not destroyed in an explosion. This is
    a well-documented fact; see the Rogers Commission report, for example.
    What looked like an explosion was fuel burning after the external tank
    came apart. The forces on the crew cabin were not sufficient to kill the
    astronauts, never mind destroy their bodies, according to the Kerwin
    team's medical/forensic report.

    The astronauts were killed when the more-or-less intact cabin hit the
    water at circa 200MPH, and their bodies then spent several weeks
    underwater. Their remains were recovered, and after the Kerwin team
    examined them, they were sent off to be buried.


    USING THE SHUTTLE BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT

    You can't use the shuttle orbiter for missions beyond low Earth orbit
    because it can't get there. It is big and heavy and does not carry
    enough fuel, even if you fill part of the cargo bay with tanks.

    Furthermore, it is not particularly sensible to do so, because much of
    that weight is things like wings, which are totally useless except in
    the immediate vicinity of the Earth. The shuttle orbiter is highly
    specialized for travel between Earth's surface and low orbit. Taking it
    higher is enormously costly and wasteful. A much better approach would
    be to use shuttle subsystems to build a specialized high-orbit
    spacecraft.

    [Yet another concise answer by Henry Spencer.]


    THE "FACE ON MARS"

    There really is a big rock on Mars that looks remarkably like a humanoid
    face. It appears in two different frames of Viking Orbiter imagery:
    35A72 (much more facelike in appearance, and the one more often
    published, with the Sun 10 degrees above western horizon) and 70A13
    (with the Sun 27 degrees from the west).

    Science writer Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is
    artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an
    extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the
    resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a
    smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere
    on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't
    know the address) to study the Face.

    The Mars Observer mission will carry an extremely high-resolution
    camera, and better images of the formation will hopefully settle this
    question in a few years. In the meantime, speculation about the Face is
    best carried on in the altnet group alt.alien.visitors, not sci.space or
    sci.astro.

    V. DiPeitro and G. Molenaar, *Unusual Martian Surface Features*, Mars
    Research, P.O. Box 284, Glen Dale, Maryland, USA, 1982. $18 by mail.

    R.R. Pozos, *The Face of Mars*, Chicago Review Press, 1986. [Account of
    an interdisciplinary speculative conference Hoagland organized to
    investigate the Face]

    R.C. Hoagland, *The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever*,
    North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA, 1987. [Elaborate
    discussion of evidence and speculation that formations near the Face
    form a city]

    M.J. Carlotto, "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface
    Features," *Applied Optics*, 27, pp. 1926-1933, 1987. [Extracts
    three-dimensional model for the Face from the 2-D images]

    M.J. Carlotto & M.C. Stein, "A Method of Searching for Artificial
    Objects on Planetary Surfaces," *Journal of the British Interplanetary
    Society*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p.209-216. [Uses a fractal image
    analysis model to guess whether the Face is artificial]

    B. O'Leary, "Analysis of Images of the `Face' on Mars and Possible
    Intelligent Origin," *JBIS*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p. 203-208.
    [Lights Carlotto's model from the two angles and shows it's consistent;
    shows that the Face doesn't look facelike if observed from the surface]


NEXT: FAQ #13/15 - Space activist/interest/research groups & space publications

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59849
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 13/15 - Interest Groups & Publications

Archive-name: space/groups
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:08 $

SPACE ACTIVIST/INTEREST/RESEARCH GROUPS AND SPACE PUBLICATIONS

    GROUPS

    AIA -- Aerospace Industry Association. Professional group, with primary
	membership of major aerospace firms. Headquartered in the DC area.
	Acts as the "voice of the aerospace industry" -- and it's opinions
	are usually backed up by reams of analyses and the reputations of
	the firms in AIA.

	    [address needed]

    AIAA -- American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
	Professional association, with somewhere about 30,000-40,000
	members. 65 local chapters around the country -- largest chapters
	are DC area (3000 members), LA (2100 members), San Francisco (2000
	members), Seattle/NW (1500), Houston (1200) and Orange County
	(1200), plus student chapters. Not a union, but acts to represent
	aviation and space professionals (engineers, managers, financial
	types) nationwide. Holds over 30 conferences a year on space and
	aviation topics publishes technical Journals (Aerospace Journal,
	Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, etc.), technical reference books
	and is _THE_ source on current aerospace state of the art through
	their published papers and proceedings. Also offers continuing
	education classes on aerospace design. Has over 60 technical
	committees, and over 30 committees for industry standards. AIAA acts
	as a professional society -- offers a centralized resume/jobs
	function, provides classes on job search, offers low-cost health and
	life insurance, and lobbies for appropriate legislation (AIAA was
	one of the major organizations pushing for IRAs - Individual
	Retirement Accounts). Very active public policy arm -- works
	directly with the media, congress and government agencies as a
	legislative liaison and clearinghouse for inquiries about aerospace
	technology technical issues. Reasonably non-partisan, in that they
	represent the industry as a whole, and not a single company,
	organization, or viewpoint.

	Membership $70/yr (student memberships are less).

	American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
	The Aerospace Center
	370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW
	Washington, DC 20077-0820
	(202)-646-7400

    AMSAT - develops small satellites (since the 1960s) for a variety of
	uses by amateur radio enthusiasts. Has various publications,
	supplies QuickTrak satellite tracking software for PC/Mac/Amiga etc.

	Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)
	P.O. Box 27
	Washington, DC 20044
	(301)-589-6062

    ASERA - Australian Space Engineering and Research Association. An
	Australian non-profit organisation to coordinate, promote, and
	conduct space R&D projects in Australia, involving both Australian
	and international (primarily university) collaborators. Activities
	include the development of sounding rockets, small satellites
	(especially microsatellites), high-altitude research balloons, and
	appropriate payloads. Provides student projects at all levels, and
	is open to any person or organisation interested in participating.
	Publishes a monthly newsletter and a quarterly technical journal.

	Membership $A100 (dual subscription)
	Subscriptions $A25 (newsletter only) $A50 (journal only)

	ASERA Ltd
	PO Box 184
	Ryde, NSW, Australia, 2112
	email: lindley@syd.dit.csiro.au

    BIS - British Interplanetary Society. Probably the oldest pro-space
	group, BIS publishes two excellent journals: _Spaceflight_, covering
	current space activities, and the _Journal of the BIS_, containing
	technical papers on space activities from near-term space probes to
	interstellar missions. BIS has published a design study for an
	interstellar probe called _Daedalus_.

	British Interplanetary Society
	27/29 South Lambeth Road
	London SW8 1SZ
	ENGLAND

	No dues information available at present.

    ISU - International Space University. ISU is a non-profit international
	graduate-level educational institution dedicated to promoting the
	peaceful exploration and development of space through multi-cultural
	and multi-disciplinary space education and research. For further
	information on ISU's summer session program or Permanent Campus
	activities please send messages to 'information@isu.isunet.edu' or
	contact the ISU Executive Offices at:

	International Space University
	955 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor
	Cambridge, MA 02139
	(617)-354-1987 (phone)
	(617)-354-7666 (fax)

    L-5 Society (defunct). Founded by Keith and Carolyn Henson in 1975 to
	advocate space colonization. Its major success was in preventing US
	participation in the UN "Moon Treaty" in the late 1970s. Merged with
	the National Space Institute in 1987, forming the National Space
	Society.

    NSC - National Space Club. Open for general membership, but not well
	known at all. Primarily comprised of professionals in aerospace
	industry. Acts as information conduit and social gathering group.
	Active in DC, with a chapter in LA. Monthly meetings with invited
	speakers who are "heavy hitters" in the field. Annual "Outlook on
	Space" conference is _the_ definitive source of data on government
	annual planning for space programs. Cheap membership (approx
	$20/yr).

	    [address needed]

    NSS - the National Space Society. NSS is a pro-space group distinguished
	by its network of local chapters. Supports a general agenda of space
	development and man-in-space, including the NASA space station.
	Publishes _Ad Astra_, a monthly glossy magazine, and runs Shuttle
	launch tours and Space Hotline telephone services. A major sponsor
	of the annual space development conference. Associated with
	Spacecause and Spacepac, political lobbying organizations.

	Membership $18 (youth/senior) $35 (regular).

	National Space Society
	Membership Department
	922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
	Washington, DC 20003-2140
	(202)-543-1900

    Planetary Society - founded by Carl Sagan. The largest space advocacy
	group. Publishes _Planetary Report_, a monthly glossy, and has
	supported SETI hardware development financially. Agenda is primarily
	support of space science, recently amended to include an
	international manned mission to Mars.

	The Planetary Society
	65 North Catalina Avenue
	Pasadena, CA 91106

	Membership $35/year.

    SSI - the Space Studies Institute, founded by Dr. Gerard O'Neill.
	Physicist Freeman Dyson took over the Presidency of SSI after
	O'Neill's death in 1992. Publishes _SSI Update_, a bimonthly
	newsletter describing work-in-progress. Conducts a research program
	including mass-drivers, lunar mining processes and simulants,
	composites from lunar materials, solar power satellites. Runs the
	biennial Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing.

	Membership $25/year. Senior Associates ($100/year and up) fund most
	    SSI research.

	Space Studies Institute
	258 Rosedale Road
	PO Box 82
	Princeton, NJ 08540

    SEDS - Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. Founded in
	1980 at MIT and Princeton. SEDS is a chapter-based pro-space
	organization at high schools and universities around the world.
	Entirely student run. Each chapter is independent and coordinates
	its own local activities. Nationally, SEDS runs a scholarship
	competition, design contests, and holds an annual international
	conference and meeting in late summer.

	Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
	MIT Room W20-445
	77 Massachusetts Avenue
	Cambridge, MA  02139
	(617)-253-8897
	email: odyssey@athena.mit.edu

	Dues determined by local chapter.

    SPACECAUSE -  A political lobbying organization and part of the NSS
	Family of Organizations. Publishes a bi-monthly newsletter,
	Spacecause News. Annual dues is $25. Members also receive a discount
	on _The Space Activist's Handbook_. Activities to support pro-space
	legislation include meeting with political leaders and interacting
	with legislative staff. Spacecause primarily operates in the
	legislative process.

	National Office			West Coast Office
	Spacecause			Spacecause
	922 Pennsylvania Ave. SE	3435 Ocean Park Blvd.
	Washington, D.C. 20003		Suite 201-S
	(202)-543-1900			Santa Monica, CA 90405

    SPACEPAC - A political action committee and part of the NSS Family of
	Organizations. Spacepac researches issues, policies, and candidates.
	Each year, updates _The Space Activist's Handbook_. Current Handbook
	price is $25. While Spacepac does not have a membership, it does
	have regional contacts to coordinate local activity. Spacepac
	primarily operates in the election process, contributing money and
	volunteers to pro-space candidates.

	Spacepac
	922 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
	Washington, DC 20003
	(202)-543-1900

    UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION - a public, non-profit organization
	supported by member donations and dedicated to promoting
	international education, understanding and support of space. The
	group hosts an annual conference for teachers and others interested
	in education. Other projects include developing lesson plans that
	use space to teach other basic skills such as reading. Publishes
	"Spacewatch," a monthly B&W glossy magazine of USSF events and
	general space news. Annual dues:

		Charter		$50 ($100 first year)
		Individual	$35
		Teacher		$29
		College student $20
		HS/Jr. High	$10
		Elementary	 $5
		Founder &     $1000+
		    Life Member

	United States Space Foundation
	PO Box 1838
	Colorado Springs, CO 80901
	(719)-550-1000

    WORLD SPACE FOUNDATION - has been designing and building a solar-sail
    spacecraft for longer than any similar group; many JPL employees lend
    their talents to this project. WSF also provides partial funding for the
    Palomar Sky Survey, an extremely successful search for near-Earth
    asteroids. Publishes *Foundation News* and *Foundation Astronautics
    Notebook*, each a quarterly 4-8 page newsletter. Contributing Associate,
    minimum of $15/year (but more money always welcome to support projects).

	World Space Foundation
	Post Office Box Y
	South Pasadena, California 91301


    PUBLICATIONS

    Aerospace Daily (McGraw-Hill)
	Very good coverage of aerospace and space issues. Approx. $1400/yr.

    Air & Space / Smithsonian (bimonthly magazine)
	Box 53261
	Boulder, CO 80332-3261
	$18/year US, $24/year international

    ESA - The European Space Agency publishes a variety of periodicals,
	generally available free of charge. A document describing them in
	more detail is in the Ames SPACE archive in
	pub/SPACE/FAQ/ESAPublications.

    Final Frontier (mass-market bimonthly magazine) - history, book reviews,
	general-interest articles (e.g. "The 7 Wonders of the Solar System",
	"Everything you always wanted to know about military space
	programs", etc.)

	Final Frontier Publishing Co.
	PO Box 534
	Mt. Morris, IL 61054-7852
	$14.95/year US, $19.95 Canada, $23.95 elsewhere

    Space News (weekly magazine) - covers US civil and military space
	programs. Said to have good political and business but spotty
	technical coverage.

	Space News
	Springfield VA 22159-0500
	(703)-642-7330
	$75/year, may have discounts for NSS/SSI members

    Journal of the Astronautical Sciences and Space Times - publications of
	the American Astronautical Society. No details.

	AAS Business Office
	6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite #102
	Springfield, VA 22152
	(703)-866-0020

    GPS World (semi-monthly) - reports on current and new uses of GPS, news
	and analysis of the system and policies affecting it, and technical
	and product issues shaping GPS applications.

	GPS World
	859 Willamette St.
	P.O. Box 10460
	Eugene, OR 97440-2460
	(503)-343-1200

	Free to qualified individuals; write for free sample copy.

    Innovation (Space Technology) -- Free. Published by the NASA Office of
	Advanced Concepts and Technology. A revised version of the NASA
	Office of Commercial Programs newsletter.

    Planetary Encounter - in-depth technical coverage of planetary missions,
	with diagrams, lists of experiments, interviews with people directly
	involved.
    World Spaceflight News - in-depth technical coverage of near-Earth
	spaceflight. Mostly covers the shuttle: payload manifests, activity
	schedules, and post-mission assessment reports for every mission.

	Box 98
	Sewell, NJ 08080
	$30/year US/Canada
	$45/year elsewhere

    Space (bi-monthly magazine)
	British aerospace trade journal. Very good. $75/year.

    Space Calendar (weekly newsletter)

    Space Daily/Space Fax Daily  (newsletter)
	Short (1 paragraph) news notes. Available online for a fee
	(unknown).

    Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News -- irregular Internet
	column on aspects of commercial space business. Free. Also limited
	fax and paper edition.

	    P.O. Box 2452
	    Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452.

    All the following are published by:

	Phillips Business Information, Inc.
	7811 Montrose Road
	Potomac, MC 20854

	Aerospace Financial News - $595/year.
	Defense Daily - Very good coverage of space and defense issues.
	    $1395/year.
	Space Business News (bi-weekly) - Very good overview of space
	    business activities. $497/year.
	Space Exploration Technology (bi-weekly) - $495/year.
	Space Station News (bi-weekly) - $497/year.

    UNDOCUMENTED GROUPS

	Anyone who would care to write up descriptions of the following
	groups (or others not mentioned) for inclusion in the answer is
	encouraged to do so.

	AAS - American Astronautical Society
	Other groups not mentioned above

NEXT: FAQ #14/15 - How to become an astronaut

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59850
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 14/15 - How to Become an Astronaut

Archive-name: space/astronaut
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:02 $

HOW TO BECOME AN ASTRONAUT

    First the short form, authored by Henry Spencer, then an official NASA
    announcement.

    Q. How do I become an astronaut?

    A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably
    impossible for a non-Russian to get into the cosmonaut corps (paying
    passengers are not professional cosmonauts), and the other nations have
    so few astronauts (and fly even fewer) that you're better off hoping to
    win a lottery. Becoming a shuttle pilot requires lots of fast-jet
    experience, which means a military flying career; forget that unless you
    want to do it anyway. So you want to become a shuttle "mission
    specialist".

    If you aren't a US citizen, become one; that is a must.  After that,
    the crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly
    exceeds the supply.  NASA's problem is not finding qualified people,
    but thinning the lineup down to manageable length.	It is not enough
    to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason,
    many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job.

    Get a Ph.D.  Specialize in something that involves getting your hands
    dirty with equipment, not just paper and pencil.  Forget computer
    programming entirely; it will be done from the ground for the fore-
    seeable future.  Degree(s) in one field plus work experience in
    another seems to be a frequent winner.

    Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight.	(DO NOT get a
    radial keratomy or similar hack to improve your vision; nobody knows
    what sudden pressure changes would do to RKed eyes, and long-term
    effects are poorly understood.  For that matter, avoid any other
    significant medical unknowns.)  If you can pass a jet-pilot physical,
    you should be okay; if you can't, your chances are poor.

    Practise public speaking, and be conservative and conformist in
    appearance and actions; you've got a tough selling job ahead, trying
    to convince a cautious, conservative selection committee that you
    are better than hundreds of other applicants.  (And, also, that you
    will be a credit to NASA after you are hired:  public relations is
    a significant part of the job, and NASA's image is very prim and
    proper.)  The image you want is squeaky-clean workaholic yuppie.
    Remember also that you will need a security clearance at some point,
    and Security considers everybody guilty until proven innocent.
    Keep your nose clean.

    Get a pilot's license and make flying your number one hobby;
    experienced pilots are known to be favored even for non-pilot jobs.

    Work for NASA; of 45 astronauts selected between 1984 and 1988,
    43 were military or NASA employees, and the remaining two were
    a NASA consultant and Mae Jemison (the first black female astronaut).
    If you apply from outside NASA and miss, but they offer you a job
    at NASA, ***TAKE IT***; sometimes in the past this has meant "you
    do look interesting but we want to know you a bit better first".

    Think space:  they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance
    to demonstrate motivation.

    Keep trying.  Many astronauts didn't make it the first time.




    NASA
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
    Houston, Texas

    Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates
    ==================================================================

    Astronaut Candidate Program
    ---------------------------

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a need for
    Pilot Astronaut Candidates and Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidates
    to support the Space Shuttle Program. NASA is now accepting on a
    continuous basis and plans to select astronaut candidates as needed.

    Persons from both the civilian sector and the military services will be
    considered.

    All positions are located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in
    Houston, Texas, and will involved a 1-year training and evaluation
    program.

    Space Shuttle Program Description
    ---------------------------------

    The numerous successful flights of the Space Shuttle have demonstrated
    that operation and experimental investigations in space are becoming
    routine. The Space Shuttle Orbiter is launched into, and maneuvers in
    the Earth orbit performing missions lastling up to 30 days. It then
    returns to earth and is ready for another flight with payloads and
    flight crew.

    The Orbiter performs a variety of orbital missions including deployment
    and retrieval of satellites, service of existing satellites, operation
    of specialized laboratories (astronomy, earth sciences, materials
    processing, manufacturing), and other operations. These missions will
    eventually include the development and servicing of a permanent space
    station. The Orbiter also provides a staging capability for using higher
    orbits than can be achieved by the Orbiter itself. Users of the Space
    Shuttle's capabilities are both domestic and foreign and include
    government agencies and private industries.

    The crew normally consists of five people - the commander, the pilot,
    and three mission specialists. On occasion additional crew members are
    assigned. The commander, pilot, and mission specialists are NASA
    astronauts.

    Pilot Astronaut

    Pilot astronauts server as both Space Shuttle commanders and pilots.
    During flight the commander has onboard responsibility for the vehicle,
    crew, mission success and safety in flight. The pilot assists the
    commander in controlling and operating the vehicle. In addition, the
    pilot may assist in the deployment and retrieval of satellites utilizing
    the remote manipulator system, in extra-vehicular activities, and other
    payload operations.

    Mission Specialist Astronaut

    Mission specialist astronauts, working with the commander and pilot,
    have overall responsibility for the coordination of Shuttle operations
    in the areas of crew activity planning, consumables usage, and
    experiment and payload operations. Mission specialists are required to
    have a detailed knowledge of Shuttle systems, as well as detailed
    knowledge of the operational characteristics, mission requirements and
    objectives, and supporting systems and equipment for each of the
    experiments to be conducted on their assigned missions. Mission
    specialists will perform extra-vehicular activities, payload handling
    using the remote manipulator system, and perform or assist in specific
    experimental operations.

    Astronaut Candidate Program
    ===========================

    Basic Qualification Requirements
    --------------------------------

    Applicants MUST meet the following minimum requirements prior to
    submitting an application.

    Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate:

    1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering,
    biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be
    followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible,
    professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable and may be
    substituted for part or all of the experience requirement (master's
    degree = 1 year, doctoral degree = 3 years). Quality of academic
    preparation is important.

    2. Ability to pass a NASA class II space physical, which is similar to a
    civilian or military class II flight physical and includes the following
    specific standards:

	 Distant visual acuity:
	      20/150 or better uncorrected,
	      correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	 Blood pressure:
	      140/90 measured in sitting position.

    3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.

    Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

    1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering,
    biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be
    followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible,
    professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable. Quality of
    academic preparation is important.

    2. At least 1000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight
    test experience highly desirable.

    3. Ability to pass a NASA Class I space physical which is similar to a
    military or civilian Class I flight physical and includes the following
    specific standards:

	 Distant visual acuity:
	      20/50 or better uncorrected
	      correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	 Blood pressure:
	      140/90 measured in sitting position.

    4. Height between 64 and 76 inches.

    Citizenship Requirements

    Applications for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of
    the United States.

    Note on Academic Requirements

    Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must meet the basic
    education requirements for NASA engineering and scientific positions --
    specifically: successful completion of standard professional curriculum
    in an accredited college or university leading to at least a bachelor's
    degree with major study in an appropriate field of engineering,
    biological science, physical science, or mathematics.

      The following degree fields, while related to engineering and the
    sciences, are not considered qualifying:
      - Degrees in technology (Engineering Technology, Aviation Technology,
	Medical Technology, etc.)
      - Degrees in Psychology (except for Clinical Psychology, Physiological
	Psychology, or Experimental Psychology which are qualifying).
      - Degrees in Nursing.
      - Degrees in social sciences (Geography, Anthropology, Archaeology, etc.)
      - Degrees in Aviation, Aviation Management or similar fields.

    Application Procedures
    ----------------------

    Civilian

    The application package may be obtained by writing to:

	NASA Johnson Space Center
	Astronaut Selection Office
	ATTN: AHX
	Houston, TX 77058

    Civilian applications will be accepted on a continuous basis. When NASA
    decides to select additional astronaut candidates, consideration will be
    given only to those applications on hand on the date of decision is
    made. Applications received after that date will be retained and
    considered for the next selection. Applicants will be notified annually
    of the opportunity to update their applications and to indicate
    continued interest in being considered for the program. Those applicants
    who do not update their applications annually will be dropped from
    consideration, and their applications will not be retained. After the
    preliminary screening of applications, additional information may be
    requested for some applicants, and person listed on the application as
    supervisors and references may be contacted.

    Active Duty Military

    Active duty military personnel must submit applications to their
    respective military service and not directly to NASA. Application
    procedures will be disseminated by each service.

    Selection
    ---------

    Personal interviews and thorough medical evaluations will be required
    for both civilian and military applicants under final consideration.
    Once final selections have been made, all applicants who were considered
    will be notified of the outcome of the process.

    Selection rosters established through this process may be used for the
    selection of additional candidates during a one year period following
    their establishment.

    General Program Requirements

    Selected applicants will be designated Astronaut Candidates and will be
    assigned to the Astronaut Office at the Johnson Space Center, Houston,
    Texas. The astronaut candidates will undergo a 1 year training and
    evaluation period during which time they will be assigned technical or
    scientific responsibilities allowing them to contribute substantially to
    ongoing programs. They will also participate in the basic astronaut
    training program which is designed to develop the knowledge and skills
    required for formal mission training upon selection for a flight. Pilot
    astronaut candidates will maintain proficiency in NASA aircraft during
    their candidate period.

    Applicants should be aware that selection as an astronaut candidate does
    not insure selection as an astronaut. Final selection as an astronaut
    will depend on satisfactory completion of the 1 year training and
    evaluation period. Civilian candidates who successfully complete the
    training and evaluation and are selected as astronauts will become
    permanent Federal employees and will be expected to remain with NASA for
    a period of at least five years. Civilian candidates who are not
    selected as astronauts may be placed in other positions within NASA
    depending upon Agency requirements and manpower constraints at that
    time. Successful military candidates will be detailed to NASA for a
    specified tour of duty.

    NASA has an affirmative action program goal of having qualified
    minorities and women among those qualified as astronaut candidates.
    Therefore, qualified minorities and women are encouraged to apply.

    Pay and Benefits
    ----------------

    Civilians

    Salaries for civilian astronaut candidates are based on the Federal
    Governments General Schedule pay scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14,
    and are set in accordance with each individuals academic achievements
    and experience.

    Other benefits include vacation and sick leave, a retirement plan, and
    participation in group health and life insurance plans.

    Military

    Selected military personnel will be detailed to the Johnson Space Center
    but will remain in an active duty status for pay, benefits, leave, and
    other similar military matters.


NEXT: FAQ #15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59870
Subject: Diffs to sci.space/sci.astro Frequently Asked Questions
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/diff

DIFFS SINCE LAST FAQ POSTING (IN POSTING ORDER)

(These are hand-edited context diffs; do not attempt to use them to patch
old copies of the FAQ).

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.intro
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06400	Thu Apr  1 14:47:22 1993
--- FAQ.intro	Thu Apr  1 14:46:55 1993
***************
*** 101,107 ****
		  NASA Langley (Technical Reports)
		  NASA Spacelink
		  National Space Science Data Center
-		  Space And Planetary Image Facility
		  Space Telescope Science Institute Electronic Info. Service
		  Starcat
		  Astronomical Databases
--- 101,106 ----
***************
*** 130,135 ****
--- 129,135 ----
	      LLNL "great exploration"
	      Lunar Prospector
	      Lunar science and activities
+	      Orbiting Earth satellite histories
	      Spacecraft models
	      Rocket propulsion
	      Spacecraft design

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.net
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06405	Thu Apr  1 14:47:24 1993
--- FAQ.net	Thu Apr  1 14:46:57 1993
***************
*** 58,63 ****
--- 58,67 ----
      elements are sent out on the list from Dr. Kelso, JSC, and other sources
      as they are released. Email to elements-request@telesoft.com to join.

+     GPS Digest is a moderated list for discussion of the Global Positioning
+     System and other satellite navigation positioning systems. Email to
+     gps-request@esseye.si.com to join.
+
      Space-investors is a list for information relevant to investing in
      space-related companies. Email Vincent Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) to join.

***************
*** 223,227 ****
--- 227,241 ----
      1030. If in fact you should should learn of unauthorized access, contact
      NASA personnel.

+     Claims have been made on this news group about fraud and waste. None
+     have ever been substantiated to any significant degree. Readers
+     detecting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Mismanagement should contact the NASA
+     Inspector General (24-hours) at 800-424-9183 (can be anonymous) or write
+
+	  NASA
+	  Inspector General
+	  P.O. Box 23089
+	  L'enfant Plaza Station
+	  Washington DC 20024

  NEXT: FAQ #3/15 - Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.data
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06410	Thu Apr  1 14:47:26 1993
--- FAQ.data	Thu Apr  1 14:46:54 1993
***************
*** 216,237 ****
	  Telephone: (301) 286-6695

	  Email address:   request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
-
-
-     SPACE AND PLANETARY IMAGE FACILITY
-
-     Available 24 hours a day via anonymous FTP from pioneer.unm.edu. Has
-     approximately 150 CD-ROM's full of imagery, raw, and tabular data. To
-     start, get the file:
-
-	  pioneer.unm.edu:pub/info/beginner-info
-
-     This will hopefully give you all of the information you need to get data
-     from their machine. beginner-info has been translated to other
-     languages, you should look inside pub/info for the particular language
-     that meets your needs.
-
-     Contact help@pioneer.unm.edu.


      SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE
--- 216,221 ----

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.math
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06415	Thu Apr  1 14:47:28 1993
--- FAQ.math	Thu Apr  1 14:46:56 1993
***************
*** 60,65 ****
--- 60,71 ----
	  Gives series to compute positions accurate to 1 arc minute for a
	  period + or - 300 years from now. Pluto is included but stated to
	  have an accuracy of only about 15 arc minutes.
+
+     _Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac_ (MICA), produced by the US
+     Naval Observatory. Valid for years 1990-1999. $55 ($80 outside US).
+     Available for IBM (order #PB93-500163HDV) or Macintosh (order
+     #PB93-500155HDV). From the NTIS sales desk, (703)-487-4650. I believe
+     this is intended to replace the USNO's Interactive Computer Ephemeris.

      _Interactive Computer Ephemeris_ (from the US Naval Observatory)
      distributed on IBM-PC floppy disks, $35 (Willmann-Bell). Covers dates

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.references
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06420	Thu Apr  1 14:47:30 1993
--- FAQ.references	Thu Apr  1 14:46:59 1993
***************
*** 93,100 ****
      US Naval Observatory
	  202-653-1079 (USNO Bulletin Board via modem)
	  202-653-1507 General
-	  202-653-1545 Nautical Almanac Office (info on the Interactive
-	      Computer Ephemeris)

      Willmann-Bell
      P.O. Box 35025
--- 93,98 ----
***************
*** 138,151 ****
      SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
      suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
      mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
!     orbit vehicle is uncertain at present; for considerably more detail on
!     the SSRT program, get the document

!	  ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/DeltaClipper

!     by anonymous FTP or through the email server.


      HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

      Official names are decided by committees of the International
--- 136,151 ----
      SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
      suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
      mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
!     orbit vehicle (called Delta Clipper) is uncertain at present.

!     An collection of pictures and files relating to DC-X is available by
!     anonymous FTP or email server in the directory

!	  bongo.cc.utexas.edu:pub/delta-clipper

+     Chris W. Johnson (chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu) maintains the archive.

+
      HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

      Official names are decided by committees of the International
***************
*** 223,228 ****
--- 223,236 ----
      University Press, 1970. Information about the Lunar Orbiter missions,
      including maps of the coverage of the lunar nearside and farside by
      various Orbiters.
+
+
+     ORBITING EARTH SATELLITE HISTORIES
+
+     A list of Earth orbiting satellites (that are still in orbit) is
+     available by anonymous FTP in:
+
+	  ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/Satellites


      SPACECRAFT MODELS

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.addresses
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06435	Thu Apr  1 14:47:34 1993
--- FAQ.addresses	Thu Apr  1 14:46:51 1993
***************
*** 75,80 ****
--- 75,85 ----
	  the latter, an SF 171 is useless. Employees are Caltech employees,
	  contractors, and for the most part have similar responsibilities.
	  They offer an alternative to funding after other NASA Centers.
+
+	  A fact sheet and description of JPL is available by anonymous
+	  FTP in
+
+	      ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/JPLDescription

      NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
      Houston, TX 77058

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.new_probes
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06450	Thu Apr  1 14:47:38 1993
--- FAQ.new_probes	Thu Apr  1 14:46:58 1993
***************
*** 8,13 ****
--- 8,19 ----
      team, ISAS/NASDA launch schedules, press kits.


+     ASUKA (ASTRO-D) - ISAS (Japan) X-ray astronomy satellite, launched into
+     Earth orbit on 2/20/93. Equipped with large-area wide-wavelength (1-20
+     Angstrom) X-ray telescope, X-ray CCD cameras, and imaging gas
+     scintillation proportional counters.
+
+
      CASSINI - Saturn orbiter and Titan atmosphere probe. Cassini is a joint
      NASA/ESA project designed to accomplish an exploration of the Saturnian
      system with its Cassini Saturn Orbiter and Huygens Titan Probe. Cassini
***************
*** 98,115 ****


      MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
!     surface at high resolution. Currently (11/92) in mapping cycle 4,
!     collecting a global gravity map.


      MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
!     Launched 9/24/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (3/93) in
      transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
      one martian year (687 days).


!     TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched in
!     August 1992 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
      TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
      observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
      increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
--- 104,121 ----


      MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
!     surface at high resolution. Currently (4/93) collecting a global gravity
!     map.


      MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
!     Launched 9/25/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (4/93) in
      transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
      one martian year (687 days).


!     TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched
!     8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
      TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
      observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
      increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.astronaut
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06465	Thu Apr  1 14:47:43 1993
--- FAQ.astronaut	Thu Apr  1 14:46:52 1993
***************
*** 162,174 ****
      specific standards:

	   Distant visual acuity:
!		20/100 or better uncorrected,
		correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	   Blood pressure:
		140/90 measured in sitting position.

!     3. Height between 60 and 76 inches.

      Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

--- 162,174 ----
      specific standards:

	   Distant visual acuity:
!		20/150 or better uncorrected,
		correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	   Blood pressure:
		140/90 measured in sitting position.

!     3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.

      Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59871
Subject: Space FAQ 01/15 - Introduction
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/intro
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:10 $

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON SCI.SPACE/SCI.ASTRO

    INTRODUCTION

    This series of linked messages is periodically posted to the Usenet
groups sci.space and sci.astro in an attempt to provide good answers to
frequently asked questions and other reference material which is worth
preserving. If you have corrections or answers to other frequently asked
questions that you would like included in this posting, send email to
leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech).

    If you don't want to see the FAQ, add 'Frequently Asked Questions' to
your KILL file for this group (if you're not reading this with a newsreader
that can kill articles by subject, you're out of luck).

    The FAQ volume is excessive right now and will hopefully be trimmed down
by rewriting and condensing over time. The FAQ postings are available in
the Ames SPACE archive in FAQ/faq<#>.

    Good summaries will be accepted in place of the answers given here. The
point of this is to circulate existing information, and avoid rehashing old
answers. Better to build on top than start again. Nothing more depressing
than rehashing old topics for the 100th time. References are provided
because they give more complete information than any short generalization.

    Questions fall into three basic types:

    1) Where do I find some information about space?

    Try your local public library first. The net is not a good place to ask
    for general information. Ask INDIVIDUALS (by email) if you must. There
    are other sources, use them, too. The net is a place for open ended
    discussion.

    2) I have an idea which would improve space flight?

    Hope you aren't surprised, but 9,999 out of 10,000 have usually been
    thought of before. Again, contact a direct individual source for
    evaluation. NASA fields thousands of these each day.

    3) Miscellanous queries.

    These are addressed on a case-by-case basis in the following series of
    FAQ postings.


    SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER NETIQUETTE

    Read news.announce.newusers if you're on Usenet.
    Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
    Edit "Subject:" lines, especially if you're taking a tangent.
    Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. (1 mail message worth
	100 posts).
    Internet mail readers: send requests to add/drop to SPACE-REQUEST
	not SPACE.
    Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. (Check all
	references.)
    Cut down attributed articles (leave only the points you're
	responding to; remove signatures and headers). Summarize!
    Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail
	or article), state your institution, etc. Don't assume the
	'reply' function of mailers will work.
    Use absolute dates. Post in a timely way. Don't post what everyone
	will get on TV anyway.
    Some editors and window systems do character count line wrapping:
	keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terminals
	(use carriage returns).


    INDEX TO LINKED POSTINGS

    I've attempted to break the postings up into related areas. There isn't
    a keyword index yet; the following lists the major subject areas in each
    posting. Only those containing astronomy-related material are posted to
    sci.astro (indicated by '*' following the posting number).

    #	Contents

    1*	Introduction
	    Suggestions for better netiquette
	    Index to linked postings
	    Notes on addresses, phone numbers, etc.
	    Contributors

    2*	Network resources
	    Overview
	    Mailing lists
	    Periodically updated information
	    Warning about non-public networks

    3*	Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.
	    Introduction
	    Viewing Images
	    Online Archives
		NASA Ames
		NASA Astrophysics Data System
		NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (Mission Information and Images)
		NASA Langley (Technical Reports)
		NASA Spacelink
		National Space Science Data Center
		Space Telescope Science Institute Electronic Info. Service
		Starcat
		Astronomical Databases
		Astronomy Programs
		Orbital Element Sets
		SPACE Digest
	    Landsat & NASA Photos
	    Planetary Maps
	    Cometary Orbits

    4*	Performing calculations and interpreting data formats
	    Computing spacecraft orbits and trajectories
	    Computing planetary positions
	    Computing crater diameters from Earth-impacting asteroids
	    Map projections and spherical trignometry
	    Performing N-body simulations efficiently
	    Interpreting the FITS image format
	    Sky (Unix ephemeris program)
	    Three-dimensional star/galaxy coordinates

    5*	References on specific areas
	    Publishers of space/astronomy material
	    Careers in the space industry
	    DC-X single-stage to orbit (SSTO) program
	    How to name a star after a person
	    LLNL "great exploration"
	    Lunar Prospector
	    Lunar science and activities
	    Orbiting Earth satellite histories
	    Spacecraft models
	    Rocket propulsion
	    Spacecraft design
	    Esoteric propulsion schemes (solar sails, lasers, fusion...)
	    Spy satellites
	    Space shuttle computer systems
	    SETI computation (signal processing)
	    Amateur satellies & weather satellites
	    Tides

    6*	Constants and equations for calculations

    7*	Astronomical Mnemonics

    8	Contacting NASA, ESA, and other space agencies/companies
	    NASA Centers / Arianespace / ESA / NASDA / Soyuzkarta / Space
		Camp / Space Commerce Corporation / Spacehab / SPOT Image
	    Other commercial space businesses

    9	Space shuttle answers, launch schedules, TV coverage
	    Shuttle launchings and landings; schedules and how to see them
	    Why does the shuttle roll just after liftoff?
	    How to receive the NASA TV channel, NASA SELECT
	    Amateur radio frequencies for shuttle missions
	    Solid Rocket Booster fuel composition

    10	Planetary probes - Historical Missions
	    US planetary missions
	    Mariner (Venus, Mars, & Mercury flybys and orbiters)
	    Pioneer (Moon, Sun, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn flybys and orbiters)
	    Ranger (Lunar lander and impact missions)
	    Lunar Orbiter (Lunar surface photography)
	    Surveyor (Lunar soft landers)
	    Viking (Mars orbiters and landers)
	    Voyager (Outer planet flybys)
	    Soviet planetary missions
	    Soviet Lunar probes
	    Soviet Venus probes
	    Soviet Mars probes
	    Japanese planetary missions
	    Planetary mission references

    11	Upcoming planetary probes - missions and schedules
	    Cassini
	    Galileo
	    Magellan
	    Mars Observer
	    TOPEX/Poseidon
	    Ulysses
	    Other space science missions
	    Proposed missions

    12	Controversial questions
	    What happened to the Saturn V plans
	    Why data from space missions isn't immediately available
	    Risks of nuclear (RTG) power sources for space probes
	    Impact of the space shuttle on the ozone layer
	    How long can a human live unprotected in space
	    How the Challenger astronauts died
	    Using the shuttle beyond Low Earth Orbit
	    The "Face on Mars"

    13	Space activist/interest/research groups and space publications
	    Groups
	    Publications
	    Undocumented Groups

    14	How to become an astronaut

    15	Orbital and Planetary Launch Services


    NOTES ON ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, ETC.

    Unless otherwise specified, telephone numbers, addresses, and so on are
    for the United States of America. Non-US readers should remember to add
    the country code for telephone calls, etc.


    CREDITS

    Eugene Miya started a series of linked FAQ postings some years ago which
    inspired (and was largely absorbed into) this set.

    Peter Yee and Ron Baalke have and continue to spend a lot of their own
    time setting up the SPACE archives at NASA Ames and forwarding official
    NASA announcements.

    Many other people have contributed material to this list in the form of
    old postings to sci.space and sci.astro which I've edited. Please let me
    know if corrections need to be made. Contributors I've managed to keep
    track of are:

    0004847546@mcimail.com (Francis Reddy)	- map projections
    ad038@yfn.ysu.edu (Steven Fisk)		- publication refs.
    akerman@bill.phy.queensu.CA (Richard Akerman)   - crater diameters
    alweigel@athena.mit.edu (Lisa Weigel)	- SEDS info
    aoab314@emx.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) - tides
    awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) - map projections
    aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)		- Great Exploration
    baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)	- planetary probe schedules
    bankst@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Timothy Banks)	- map projections,
	variable star analysis archive
    bern@uni-trier.de (Jochen Bern)		- German mnemonic translation
    brosen@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bernie Rosen)	- Space Camp
    bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)   - FITS format
    cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward)		- space group contact info
    chapin@cbnewsc.att.com (Tom Chapin)		- planetary positions
    cunnida@tenet.edu (D. Alan Cunningham)	- NASA Spacelink
    cyamamot@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Cliff Yamamoto) - orbital elements
    datri@convex.com (Anthony Datri)		- PDS/VICAR viewing software
    daver@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)		- orbit formulae
    dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering)		- propulsion
    eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)		- Saturn V plans, SRBs
    eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)	- introduction,
	NASA contact info, started FAQ postings
    french@isu.isunet.edu (Patrick M. French)	- space group contact info
    g@telesoft.com (Gary Morris)		- amateur radio info
    gaetz@cfa.harvard.edu (Terry Gaetz)		- N-body calculations,
	orbital dynamics
    grandi@noao.edu (Steve Grandi)		- planetary positions
    greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov (Dale M. Greer)   - constants
    henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)	- survival in vacuum,
	astronaut how-to, Challenger disaster, publication refs, DC-X
    higgins@fnal.bitnet (William Higgins)	- RTGs, publishers,
	shuttle landings, spysats, propulsion, "Face on Mars"
    hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller)	- map projections,
	orbital dynamics
    jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)	- launch services
    jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)		- propulsion, launch services
    jnhead@pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (James N. Head) - atmospheric scale heights
    jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti)	- planetary positions
    kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)- refs for spacecraft design
    ken@orion.bitnet (Kenneth Ng)		- RTGs
    kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks)	- shuttle roll manuever
    klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)	- planetary probe history
    leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)		- crater diameters
    lfa@ssi.com (Lou Adornato)			- orbital dynamics
    maury.markowitz@egsgate.fidonet.org (Maury Markowitz)   - propulsion
    max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)	- equations
    mbellon@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM		- N-body calculations
    mcconley@phoenix.Princeton.edu (Marc Wayne Mcconley)    - space careers
    msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)			- Mariner 1 info.
    mwm@cmu.edu (Mark Maimone)			- SPACE Digest
    nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Dr. Nick Watkins)	- models, spysats
    ohainaut@eso.org (Olivier R. Hainaut)	- publishers, STARCAT
    oneil@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Graham O'Neil)	- Lunar Prospector
    panama@cup.portal.com (Kenneth W Durham)	- cometary orbits, IAU
    paul.blase@nss.fidonet.org (Paul Blase)	- propulsion
    pjs@plato.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Scott)	- RTGs
    pschleck@unomaha.edu (Paul W. Schleck)	- AMSAT, ARRL contact info
    rdb@mel.cocam.oz.au (Rodney Brown)		- propulsion refs
    rja7m@phil.cs.virginia.edu (Ran Atkinson)	- FTPable astro. programs
    rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com (R. Michael Jungclas)- models
    roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu (Curt Roelle)	- German mnemonic translation
    seal@leonardo.jpl.nasa.gov (David Seal)	- Cassini mission schedule
    shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)	- photos, shuttle landings
    smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith)	- photos
    stephen@gpwd.gp.co.nz (Stephen Dixon)	- shuttle audio frequencies
    sterner@warper.jhuapl.edu (Ray Sterner)	- planetary positions
    stooke@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca (Phil Stooke)	- planetary maps
    ted_anderson@transarc.com (Ted Anderson)	- propulsion
    terry@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terry Hancock)	- NASA center info
    thorson@typhoon.atmos.coloState.edu (Bill Thorson) - FITS info
    tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco)	- SPACE Digest
    tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)	- refs for algorithms
    veikko.makela@helsinki.fi (Veikko Makela)	- orbital element sets
    Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) - groups & publications
    wayne@csri.utoronto.ca (Wayne Hayes)	- constants
    weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) - Voyager history
    yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp (Yoshiro Yamada)	- ISAS/NASDA missions
    yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Yee)		- AMES archive server,
	propulsion

    In Net memoriam:
	Ted Flinn

NEXT: FAQ #2/15 - Network Resources

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59872
Subject: Space FAQ 02/15 - Network Resources
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/net
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:15 $

NETWORK RESOURCES

OVERVIEW

    You may be reading this document on any one of an amazing variety of
    computers, so much of the material below may not apply to you. In
    general, however, systems connected to 'the net' fall in one of three
    categories: Internet, Usenet, or BITNET. Electronic mail may be sent
    between these networks, and other resources available on one of these
    networks are sometimes accessible from other networks by email sent to
    special 'servers'.

    The space and astronomy discussion groups actually are composed of
    several mechanisms with (mostly) transparent connections between them.

    One mechanism is the mailing list, in which mail is sent to a central
    distribution point which relays it to all recipients of the list. In
    addition to the general lists for space (called SPACE Digest for
    Internet users, and SPACE on BITNET), there are a number of more
    specialized mailing lists described below.

    A second mechanism is Usenet 'netnews'. This is somewhat like a bulletin
    board operating on each system which is a part of the net. Netnews
    separates contributions into hundreds of different categories based on a
    'group name'. The groups dealing most closely with space topics are
    called 'sci.space.news', 'sci.space', 'sci.space.shuttle', 'sci.astro',
    and 'talk.politics.space'. Contributors 'post' submissions (called
    'articles' in netnews terminology) on their local machine, which sends
    it to other nearby machines. Similarly, articles sent from nearby
    machines are stored locally and may be forwarded to other systems, so
    that an article is posted locally and eventually reaches all the Usenet
    sites interested in receiving the news group to which the article was
    posted.

    Gateway machines redirect the Usenet sci.space group into Internet and
    BITNET mailing lists and vice versa; the other Usenet groups are not
    accessible as mailing lists. If you can receive netnews, its more
    flexible interface and access to a wider range of material usually make
    it the preferred option.

MAILING LISTS

    SPACE Digest is the main Internet list, and is now being run by the
    International Space University (in only its second change of management
    in over a decade). Email space-request@isu.isunet.edu (message body
    should be in the format 'subscribe space John Public') to join. Note
    that the moderated SPACE Magazine list is defunct at present for lack of
    a moderator. Old copies of SPACE Digest since its inception in 1981 are
    available by anonymous FTP. Retrieve
	julius.cs.qub.ac.uk:pub/SpaceDigestArchive/README
    for further details.

    Elements is a moderated list for fast distribution of Space Shuttle
    Keplerian Elements before and during Shuttle flights. NASA two line
    elements are sent out on the list from Dr. Kelso, JSC, and other sources
    as they are released. Email to elements-request@telesoft.com to join.

    GPS Digest is a moderated list for discussion of the Global Positioning
    System and other satellite navigation positioning systems. Email to
    gps-request@esseye.si.com to join.

    Space-investors is a list for information relevant to investing in
    space-related companies. Email Vincent Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) to join.

    Space-tech is a list for more technical discussion of space topics;
    discussion has included esoteric propulsion technologies, asteroid
    capture, starflight, orbital debris removal, etc. Email to
    space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu to join. Archives of old digests and
    selected excerpts are available by anonymous FTP from
    gs80.sp.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.205.90) in /usr/anon/public/space-tech,
    or by email to space-tech-request if you don't have FTP access.

    SEDS-L is a BITNET list for members of Students for the Exploration and
    Development of Space and other interested parties. Email
    LISTSERV@TAMVM1.BITNET with a message saying "SUBSCRIBE SEDS-L your
    name". Email saying "INDEX SEDS-L" to list the archive contents.

    SEDSNEWS is a BITNET list for news items, press releases, shuttle status
    reports, and the like. This duplicates material which is also found in
    Space Digest, sci.space, sci.space.shuttle, and sci.astro. Email
    LISTSERV@TAMVM1.BITNET saying "SUBSCRIBE SEDSNEWS your name" to join.
    Email saying "INDEX SEDSNEWS" to list the archive contents.

    Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) runs a mailing list which
    carries the contents of the sci.space.news Usenet group. Email him
    to join the list.

    As a general note, please mail to the *request* address to get off a
    mailing list. SPACE Digest, for example, relays many inappropriate
    'please remove me from this list' messages which are sent to the list
    address rather than the request address.

PERIODICALLY UPDATED INFORMATION

    In addition to this FAQ list, a broad variety of topical information is
    posted to the net (unless otherwise noted, in the new group
    sci.space.news created for this purpose). Please remember that the
    individuals posting this information are performing a service for all
    net readers, and don't take up their time with frivolous requests.

    ACRONYMS
	Garrett Wollman (wollman@UVM.EDU) posts an acronym list around the
	first of each month.

    ASTRO-FTP LIST
	Veikko Makela (veikko.makela@helsinki.fi) posts a monthly list of
	anonymous FTP servers containing astronomy and space related
	material to sci.space and sci.astro.

    AVIATION WEEK
	Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) posts summaries of
	space-related stories in the weekly _Aviation Week and Space
	Technology_.

    BUYING TELESCOPES
	Ronnie Kon (ronnie@cisco.com) posts a guide to buying telescopes to
	sci.astro.

    ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASA
	Don Barry (don@chara.gsu.edu) posts the monthly Electronic Journal
	of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic to sci.astro.

    FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
	Swaraj Jeyasingh (sjeyasin@axion.bt.co.uk) posts summaries of
	space-related news from _Flight International_. This focuses more on
	non-US space activities than Aviation Week.

    LARGE ASTRONOMICAL PROJECTS
	Robert Bunge (rbunge@access.digex.com) posts a list describing many
	"Large Telescope Projects Either Being Considered or in the Works"
	to sci.astro.

    NASA HEADLINE NEWS & SHUTTLE REPORTS
	Peter Yee (yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov) posts a variety of NASA material,
	including NASA Headline News (with the schedule for NASA SELECT),
	shuttle payload briefings and flight manifests, and KSC shuttle
	status reports. For Usenet users, much of this material appears in
	the group sci.space.shuttle.

    NASA UPDATES
	Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) posts frequent updates from
	JPL, Ames, and other centers on the Ulysses, Gailileo, Pioneer,
	Magellan, Landsat, and other missions.

    ORBITAL ELEMENT SETS
	TS Kelso (tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil) posts orbital elements from
	NASA Prediction Bulletins.

	Mike Rose (mrose@stsci.edu) posts orbital elements for the Hubble
	Space Telescope to sci.astro.

	Jost Jahn (j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de) posts ephemerides for asteroids,
	comets, conjunctions, and encounters to sci.astro.

    SATELLITE LAUNCHES
	Richard Langley (lang@unb.ca) posts SPACEWARN Bulletin, which
	describes recent launch/orbital decay information and satellites
	which are useful for scientific activities. Recent bulletins are
	available by anonymous FTP from nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov in
	ANON_DIR:[000000.ACTIVE.SPX].

    SHUTTLE MANIFEST
	Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version
	of the Space Shuttle launch manifest to sci.space.shuttle. This
	includes dates, times, payloads, and information on how to see
	launches and landings.

    SOLAR ACTIVITY
	Cary Oler (oler@hg.uleth.ca) posts Solar Terrestrial reports
	(describing solar activity and its effect on the Earth) to
	sci.space. The report is issued in part from data released by the
	Space Enviroment Services Center, Boulder Colorado. The intro
	document needed to understand these reports is available by
	anonymous FTP from solar.stanford.edu (36.10.0.4) in
	pub/understanding_solar_terrestrial_reports. nic.funet.fi
	(128.214.6.100) also has this document in
	/pub/misc/rec.radio.shortwave/solarreports and is an archive site
	for the reports (please note this site is in Europe, and the
	connection to the US is only 56KB). A new primary archive site,
	xi.uleth.ca (142.66.3.29), has recently been established and will be
	actively supported.

    SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITIES
	Glenn Chapman (glennc@cs.sfu.ca) posts summaries of Soviet space
	activities.

    SPACE ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
	Allen Sherzer (aws@iti.org) posts a newsletter, "One Small Step for
	a Space Activist," to talk.politics.space. It describes current
	legislative activity affecting NASA and commercial space activities.

    SPACE EVENTS CALENDAR
	Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) posts a calendar including
	anniversaries, conferences, launch dates, meteor showers and
	eclipses, and other space-related events.

    SPACE NEWS
	John Magliacane (kd2bd@ka2qhd.UUCP) posts "SpaceNews" (covering
	AMSATs, NOAA and other weather satellites, and other ham
	information) to rec.radio.amateur.misc and sci.space.

    SPACE REPORT
	Jonathan McDowell (mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu) posts "Jonathan's Space
	Report" covering launches, landings, reentries, status reports,
	satellite activities, etc.

    TOWARD 2001
	Bev Freed (freed@nss.fidonet.org) posts "Toward 2001", a weekly
	global news summary reprinted from _Space Calendar_ magazine.


WARNING ABOUT NON-PUBLIC NETWORKS

    (Included at the suggestion of Eugene Miya, who wrote the item)

    NASA has an internal system of unclassified electronic mail and bulletin
    boards. This system is not open for public use. Specifically, NASA
    personnel and procurement operations are regarded with some sensitivity.
    Contractors must renegotiate their contracts. The Fair and Open
    Procurement Act does not look kindly to those having inside information.
    Contractors and outsiders caught using this type of information can
    expect severe penalities. Unauthorized access attempts may subject you
    to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section
    1030. If in fact you should should learn of unauthorized access, contact
    NASA personnel.

    Claims have been made on this news group about fraud and waste. None
    have ever been substantiated to any significant degree. Readers
    detecting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Mismanagement should contact the NASA
    Inspector General (24-hours) at 800-424-9183 (can be anonymous) or write

	NASA
	Inspector General
	P.O. Box 23089
	L'enfant Plaza Station
	Washington DC 20024

NEXT: FAQ #3/15 - Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59873
Subject: Space FAQ 03/15 - Data Sources
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/data
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:07 $

ONLINE AND OTHER SOURCES OF IMAGES, DATA, ETC.


INTRODUCTION

    A wide variety of images, data, catalogs, information releases, and
    other material dealing with space and astronomy may be found on the net.
    A few sites offer direct dialup access or remote login access, while the
    remainder support some form of file transfer. Many sites are listed as
    providing 'anonymous FTP'. This refers to the File Transfer Protocol on
    the Internet. Sites not connected to the Internet cannot use FTP
    directly, but there are a few automated FTP servers which operates via
    email. Send mail containing only the word HELP to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
    or bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu, and the servers will send you instructions
    on how to make requests.

    The sources with the broadest selection of material are the NASA Ames
    SPACE archive and the National Space Science Data Center.

    Don't even ask for images to be posted to the net. The data volume is
    huge and nobody wants to spend the time on it.


VIEWING IMAGES

    The possible combinations of image formats and machines is forebodingly
    large, and I won't attempt to cover common formats (GIF, etc.) here. To
    read PDS and VICAR (and many other) formats on Unix systems running X,
    use XV 2.11, available by anonymous FTP from export.lcs.mit.edu
    (18.24.0.12) in contrib/xv-2.11.tar.Z and the other standard X11 FTP
    sites.

    The FAQ for the Usenet group alt.binaries.pictures discusses image
    formats and how to get image viewing software. A copy of this document
    is available by anonymous FTP from the Usenet FAQ archives at
    pit-manager.mit.edu (18.72.1.58), in directory
    pub/usenet/alt.binaries.pictures.


ONLINE ARCHIVES

    NASA AMES

    Extensive archives are maintained at NASA Ames and are available via
    anonymous FTP or an email server. These archives include many images and
    a wide variety of documents including this FAQ list, NASA press
    releases, shuttle launch advisories, and mission status reports. Please
    note that these are NOT maintained on an official basis.

    FTP users should connect to ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) and look in
    pub/SPACE. pub/SPACE/Index contains a listing of files available in the
    archive (the index is about 200K by itself).

    To access the archives by email, send a letter to
    archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov (or ames!archive-server). In the
    subject of your letter (or in the body), use commands like:

	send SPACE Index
	send SPACE SHUTTLE/ss01.23.91.

    The capitalization of the subdirectory names is important. All are in
    caps. Only text files are handled by the email server at present; use
    one of the FTP email servers described in the introduction to this
    section for images or programs.

    The Magellan Venus and Voyager Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus CD-ROM image
    disks have been put online in the CDROM and CDROM2 directories. The
    disks will be rotated on a weekly basis. Thousands of images are
    available in these collections.

    The GIF directory contains images in GIF format. The VICAR directory
    contains Magellan images in VICAR format (these are also available in
    the GIF directory). A PC program capable of displaying these files is
    found in the IMDISP directory (see the item "VIEWING IMAGES" below).

    The NASA media guide describes the various NASA centers and how to
    contact their public affairs officers; this may be useful when pursuing
    specific information. It's in MISC/media.guide.

    Any problems with the archive server should be reported to Peter Yee
    (yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov).


    NASA ASTROPHYSICS DATA SYSTEM

    The ADS is a distributed data retrieval system which is easy to use and
    provides uniform access to ground-based and space-based astronomy data
    from NASA data centers across the country. It currently has over 140
    data catalogs of radio, infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray data which can
    be queried by position or any other parameter in the catalog. The ADS
    also provides tools to manipulate and plot tabular results. In addition,
    ADS has a Beta version of an Abstracts Service which allows users to
    query over 125,000 abstracts of astronomy papers since 1975 by authors,
    keywords, title words, or abstract text words.

    ADS use requires direct Internet access. For more info and to sign up to
    become a user, email ads@cuads.coloradu.edu. The User's Guide and
    "QuickStart" Guide are available by anonymous FTP to sao-ftp.harvard.edu
    in directory pub/ads/ADS_User_Guide (PostScript files).

    Contact Carolyn Stern Grant (stern@cfa.harvard.edu).


    NASA JET PROPULSION LAB (MISSION INFORMATION AND IMAGES)

    pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2) is an anonymous FTP site operated by
    the JPL Public Information Office, containing news releases, status
    reports, fact sheets, images, and other data on JPL missions. It may
    also be reached by modem at (818)-354-1333 (no parity, 8 data bits, 1
    stop bit).

    Contact newsdesk@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov or phone (818)-354-7170.


    NASA LANGLEY (TECHNICAL REPORTS)

    techreports.larc.nasa.gov is an anonymous FTP site offering technical
    reports. To get started, cd to directory pub/techreports/larc/92 and
    retrieve files README and abstracts.92. Most files are compressed
    PostScript. The reports are also in a WAIS database with the following
    description:

	(:source
	 :version 3
	 :ip-name "techreports.larc.nasa.gov"
	 :tcp-port 210
	 :database-name "nasa-larc-abs"
	 :cost 0.00
	 :cost-unit :free
	 :maintainer "M.L.Nelson@LaRC.NASA.GOV"
	 :description "NASA Langley Research Center Technical Reports

    Contact tr-admin@techreports.larc.nasa.gov.


    NASA SPACELINK

    SpaceLink is an online service located at Marshall Space Flight Center
    in Huntsville, Alabama. The system is specifically designed for
    teachers. The data base is arranged to provide easy access to current
    and historical information on NASA aeronautics, space research, and
    technology transfer information. Also included are suggested classroom
    activities that incorporate information on NASA projects to teach a
    number of scientific principles. Unlike bulletin board systems, NASA
    Spacelink does not provide for interaction between callers. However it
    does allow teachers and other callers to leave questions and comments
    for NASA which may be answered by regular mail. Messages are answered
    electronically, even to acknowledge requests which will be fulfilled by
    mail. Messages are generally handled the next working day except during
    missions when turnaround times increase. The mail system is closed-loop
    between the user and NASA.

    SpaceLink also offers downloadable shareware and public domain programs
    useful for science educators as well as space graphics and GIF images
    from NASA's planetary probes and the Hubble Telescope.

    You can dial in at (205)-895-0028 (300/1200/2400/9600(V.32) baud, 8
    bits, no parity, 1 stop bit), or telnet to spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov
    (128.158.13.250, also known as xsl.msfc.nasa.gov) if you're on the
    Internet. Anonymous FTP capability (password guest) is now available.

    Most of this information is also available from the Ames server in
    directory SPACELINK.


    NATIONAL SPACE SCIENCE DATA CENTER (NSSDC)

    The National Space Science Data Center is the official clearinghouse for
    NASA data. The data catalog (*not* the data itself) is available online.
    Internet users can telnet to nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (128.183.36.23) and
    log in as 'NODIS' (no password). You can also get the catalog by sending
    email to 'request@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov'.

    You can also dial in at (301)-286-9000 (300, 1200, or 2400 baud, 8 bits,
    no parity, one stop). At the "Enter Number:" prompt, enter MD and
    carriage return. When the system responds "Call Complete," enter a few
    more carriage returns to get the "Username:" and log in as 'NODIS' (no
    password).

    The system is menu-driven; topics available as of 3/93 are:

	1   -	Master Directory - NASA & Global Change
	2   -	Personnel Information Management System
	3   -	Nimbus-7 GRID TOMS Data
	4   -	Interplanetary Medium Data (OMNI)
	5   -	Request data and/or information from NSSDC
	6   -	Geophysical Models
	7   -	CANOPUS Newsletter
	8   -	International Ultraviolet Explorer Data Request
	9   -	CZCS Browse and Order Utility
	10  -	Astronomical Data Center (ADC)
	11  -	STEP Bulletin Board Service
	12  -	Standards and Technology Information System
	13  -	Planetary Science & Magellan Project Information
	14  -	Other Online Data Services at NSSDC
	15  -	CD-ROMS Available at NSSDC

    For users with Internet access, datasets are made available via
    anonymous FTP once you select the desired datasets from the online
    catalog. For other users, data may be ordered on CD-ROM and in other
    formats. Among the many types of data available are Voyager, Magellan,
    and other planetary images, Earth observation data, and star catalogs.
    Viewers for Macintosh and IBM systems are also available. As an example
    of the cost, an 8 CD set of Voyager images is $75. Data may ordered
    online, by email, or by physical mail. The postal address is:

	National Space Science Data Center
	Request Coordination Office
	Goddard Space Flight Center
	Code 633
	Greenbelt, MD  20771

	Telephone: (301) 286-6695

	Email address:	 request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov


    SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE

    stsci.edu (130.167.1.2) has a large amount of information about the
    Hubble Space Telescope available by anonymous FTP, such as status
    reports and newsletters, in addition to material oriented towards HST
    observers and proposers. Get the top level README file to begin with.
    Contact Pete Reppert (reppert@stsci.edu) or Chris O'Dea
    (odea@stsci.edu).


    STARCAT

    The Space Telescope European Coordination Facility, at ESO/Garching
    provides on-line access to a huge astronomical database, featuring

	- Observation log files of several satellites/telescopes
	    (IUE,IRAS,HST,NTT...).
	- Spectra and images (IUE, HST).
	- Most of the astronomical catalogues (SAO, HR, NGC, PPM, IRAS,
	    Veron, GSC and many others, more than 50) in a very convenient
	    way (give center+radius+kind of objects, and you get the
	    corresponding files!).

    Log on as ``starcat'' (no password) on node stesis.hq.eso.org
    (134.171.8.100) or on STESIS (DECnet). The files created can be
    retreived by FTP. Contact: Benoit Pirenne, bpirenne@eso.org (phone +49
    89 320 06 433) at ST-ECF


    ASTRONOMICAL DATABASES

    The full SAO stellar database is *NOT* available online, probably due to
    the 40 MB size. It may be ordered on magnetic tape from the NSSDC. A
    subset containing position and magnitude only is available by FTP (see
    "Astronomy Programs" below).

    nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) has a large collection of astronomical
    programs for many types of computers, databases of stars and deep sky
    objects, and general astronomy information in directory /pub/astro. This
    site is mainly for European users, but overseas connections are
    possible.

    The Ames archives contain a database of 8,436 galaxies including name,
    RA, declination, magnitude, and radial velocity in MISC/galaxy.dat.
    Supplied by Wayne Hayes (wayne@csri.utoronto.ca).

    iris1.ucis.dal.ca (129.173.18.107) has a number of GIFs from Voyager,
    Hubble, and other sources available by anonymous FTP in pub/gif (most of
    this data is also in SPACE/GIF on the Ames server). Please restrict
    access to 5pm - 8am Atlantic time.

    pomona.claremont.edu has the Yale Bright Star catalog for anonymous FTP
    in directory [.YALE_BSC]. Contact James Dishaw
    (jdishaw@hmcvax.claremont.edu).

    The Hubble Guide Star catalog is available on CD-ROM for the Mac and PC
    for $49.95 US (catalog # ST101).

	Astronomical Society of the Pacific
	390 Ashton Ave.
	San Francisco, CA 94112
	Phone: (415) 337-2624 9 AM - 3 PM Pacific Time
	FAX: (415) 337-5205

    For German (and possibly other European) readers, Jost Jahn has a
    service to distribute astronomical data to interested amateurs at cost.
    About 30-40 catalogs are available for DM 6..8/disk. Several floppy disk
    formats are available. Because of the expense of receiving email on his
    system, he asks that you contact him by physical mail:

	Jost Jahn
	Neustaedter Strasse 11
	W-3123 Bodenteich
	GERMANY
	Phone: FRG-5824-3197


    ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS

    Various astronomy-related programs and databases posted to the net in
    the past are archived for anonymous FTP at multiple sites, including
    ftp.uu.net (137.39.1.9). Also see the ASTRO-FTP list posted to sci.astro
    monthly, which is more complete than this list.

    Astonomical/Space-related sources of interest in comp.sources.unix:

    Volume 8:	    phoon	moon phase and date routines
    Volume 12,13:   starchart	starchart program & Yale Star data
    Volume 15:	    moontool	shows moon phase picture on Suns
    Volume 16:	    sao		reduced SAO catalog

    Astonomical/Space-related sources of interest in comp.sources.misc:

    Volume  8:	    moon	another moon phase program
    Volume 11:	    starchart	starchart program, version 3.2
    Volume 11:	    n3emo-orbit orbit: track earth satellites
    Volume 12:	    starchart2	starchart program, update to version 3.2.1
    Volume 13:	    jupmoons	plotter for Jupiter's major moons [in perl]
    Volume 13:	    lunisolar	lunisolar (not sure what this does)
    Volume 14:	    ephem-4.21	astronomical ephemeris, v4.21
    Volume 14:	    n3emo-orbit patch to orbit 3.7
    Volume 18:	    planet	planet generation simulator

    Elwood Downey (e_downey@tasha.cca.cr.rockwell.com), the author of
    "ephem", has offered to mail copies to people who can't find it on one
    of the archives.

    XSAT, an X Window System based satellite tracking program, is
    available by anonymous FTP from export.lcs.mit.edu (18.24.0.12) in
    contrib/xsat1.0.tar.Z. Contact Dave Curry (davy@ecn.purdue.edu)
    for more information.

    Xsky, a computerized sky atlas for the X Window System, is available for
    anonymous FTP on arizona.edu in the directory [.SOFTWARE.UNIX.XSKY] as
    xsky.tarz. Contact Terry R. Friedrichsen (terry@venus.sunquest.com) for
    more information.

    The "Variable Stars Analysis Software Archive" is available via
    anonymous FTP from kauri.vuw.ac.nz (130.195.11.3) in directory
    pub/astrophys. This is intended for specialists in this field, and they
    would appreciate people from outside New Zealand confining their FTP
    access to the astrophys directory, as they pay a significant amount for
    Internet access. Contents are relatively sparse at present due to the
    youth of the archive - contributions are encouraged. Contact the archive
    administrator, Timothy Banks (bankst@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) for more
    information.

    The "IDL Astronomy Users Library" is available by anonymous FTP from
    idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov (128.183.57.82). This is a central repository for
    general purpose astronomy procedures written in IDL, a commercial image
    processing, plotting, and programming language. Contact Wayne Landsman
    (landsman@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov) for more information.


    ORBITAL ELEMENT SETS

    The most recent orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
    carried on the Celestial BBS, (513)-427-0674. Documentation and tracking
    software are also available on this system. The Celestial BBS may be
    accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1
    stop bit, no parity.

    Orbital element sets are available via anonymous FTP from the
    following sites:

    archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66)	    NASA,TVRO,Shuttle
    directory: /pub/space

    ftp.funet.fi (128.214.6.100)	    NASA,TVRO,Molczan,CelBBS,
    directory: /pub/astro/pc/satel	    Shuttle (*)

    kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.1.165)     NASA,Molczan
    directory: /pub/space/


    SPACE DIGEST ARCHIVES

    Copies of back issues of Space Digest are archived on
    LISTSERV@UGA.BITNET. Send mail containing the message "INDEX SPACE" to
    get an index of files; send it the message "GET filename filetype" to
    get a particular file.


LANDSAT AND NASA PHOTOS

    You can get black-and-white 1:1M prints, negatives, or positives for
    $10, $18, $12 respectively for any Landsat data more than 2 years old
    from EDC, (Eros (Earth Resources Orbiting Satellite) Data Center). Call
    them at (605)-594-6511. You get 80 meter resolution from the MSS
    scanner, 135x180 kilometers on a picture 135x180 mm in size. I think you
    have to select one band from (green, red, near IR, second near IR), but
    I'm not sure. Digitial data is also available at higher prices.

    Transparencies of all NASA photos available to the public can be
    borrowed from the NASA photo archive; you can have copies or prints
    made.

	 NASA Audio-Visual Facility
	 918 North Rengstorff Ave
	 Mountain View, CA  94043
	 (415)-604-6270


PLANETARY MAPS

    The USGS address for maps of the planets is:

    U.S. Geological Survey,
    Distribution Branch,
    Box 25286, Federal Center, Bldg. 41
    Denver, CO 80225

    Maps cost $2.40 to $3.10 per sheet (a few come in sets of 2 or 3 sheets).

    The best global maps of Mars based on Viking images are 1:15,000,000
    scale in 3 sheets. These maps are:

    I-1535 (2 sheets only) - relief, albedo, names
    I-1535
    I-1618 (3 sheets) - relief, names
    I-2030 (3 sheets) - relief, topographic contours
    I-1802-A,B,C (3 sheets) - geology

    There are many other maps as well: 30 sheets at 1:5,000,000 scale in
    relief, albedo, geology, photomosaic forms (not all 30 sheets available
    in all formats); 140 sheets at 1:2,000,000 scale as photomosaics of the
    whole planet, about 100 sheets of interesting sites at 1:500,000 scale
    in photomosaic format, and lots of special sheets.

    Then there are maps of Mercury, Venus, the Moon, the four Galilean
    Satellites, six moons of Saturn and five of Uranus. [Phil Stooke
    (stooke@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca), the author of this item, has offered to
    respond to email requests for information on any topic relating to lunar
    and planetary maps.]


COMETARY ORBIT DATA

    The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams and the Minor Planet
    Center announce the sixth edition of the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits in
    IAU Circular 4935. The catalogue contains 1292 entries which represent
    all known comets through November 1989 and is 96 pages long.
    Non-subscribers to the Circulars may purchase the catalogue for $15.00
    while the cost to subscribers is $7.50. The basic catalogue in ASCII
    along with a program to extract specific orbits and calculate
    ephemerides is available on MS-DOS 5.25-inch 2S2D diskette at a cost of
    $75.00 (the program requires an 8087 math coprocessor). The catalogue
    alone is also available by e-mail for $37.50 or on magnetic tape for
    $300.00.

    Except for the printed version of the catalogue, the various magnetic
    media or e-mail forms of the catalogue do not specifically meantion
    non-subscribers. It is possible that these forms of the catalogue may
    not be available to non-subscribers or that their prices may be more
    expensive than those given. Mail requests for specific information and
    orders to:

	Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
	Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
	Cambridge, MA 02138, USA


NEXT: FAQ #4/15 - Performing calculations and interpreting data formats

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59874
Subject: Space FAQ 05/15 - References
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/references
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:21 $

REFERENCES ON SPECIFIC AREAS

    PUBLISHERS OF SPACE/ASTRONOMY MATERIAL

    Astronomical Society of the Pacific
    1290 24th Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94122

	More expensive but better organized slide sets.

    Cambridge University Press
    32 East 57th Street
    New York, NY 10022

    Crawford-Peters Aeronautica
    P.O. Box 152528
    San Diego, CA 92115
    (619) 287-3933

	An excellent source of all kinds of space publications. They publish
	a number of catalogs, including:
	    Aviation and Space, 1945-1962
	    Aviation and Space, 1962-1990
	    Space and Related Titles

    European Southern Observatory
    Information and Photographic Service
    Dr R.M. West
    Karl Scharzschild Strasse 2
    D-8046 Garching bei Munchen
    FRG

	Slide sets, posters, photographs, conference proceedings.

    Finley Holiday Film Corporation
    12607 East Philadelphia Street
    Whittier, California 90601
    (213)945-3325
    (800)FILMS-07

	Wide selection of Apollo, Shuttle, Viking, and Voyager slides at ~50
	cents/slide. Call for a catalog.

    Hansen Planetarium (Utah)

	Said to hold sales on old slide sets. Look in Sky & Telescope
	for contact info.

    Lunar and Planetary Institute
    3303 NASA Road One
    Houston, TX 77058-4399

	Technical, geology-oriented slide sets, with supporting
	booklets.

    John Wiley & Sons
    605 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10158-0012

    Sky Publishing Corporation
    PO Box 9111
    Belmont, MA  02178-9111

	Offers "Sky Catalogue 2000.0" on PC floppy with information
	(including parallax) for 45000 stars.

    Roger Wheate
    Geography Dept.
    University of Calgary, Alberta
    Canada T2N 1N4
    (403)-220-4892
    (403)-282-7298 (FAX)
    wheate@uncamult.bitnet

	Offers a 40-slide set called "Mapping the Planets" illustrating
	recent work in planetary cartography, comes with a booklet and
	information on getting your own copies of the maps. $50 Canadian,
	shipping included.

    Superintendent of Documents
    US Government Printing Office
    Washington, DC 20402

    Univelt, Inc.
    P. O. Box 28130
    San Diego, Ca. 92128

	Publishers for the American Astronomical Society.

    US Naval Observatory
	202-653-1079 (USNO Bulletin Board via modem)
	202-653-1507 General

    Willmann-Bell
    P.O. Box 35025
    Richmond, Virginia 23235 USA
    (804)-320-7016 9-5 EST M-F


    CAREERS IN THE SPACE INDUSTRY

    In 1990 the Princeton Planetary Society published the first edition of
    "Space Jobs: The Guide to Careers in Space-Related Fields." The
    publication was enormously successful: we distributed 2000 copies to
    space enthusiasts across the country and even sent a few to people in
    Great Britain, Australia, and Ecuador. Due to the tremendous response to
    the first edition, PPS has published an expanded, up-to-date second
    edition of the guide.

    The 40-page publication boasts 69 listings for summer and full-time job
    opportunities as well as graduate school programs. The second edition of
    "Space Jobs" features strategies for entering the space field and
    describes positions at consulting and engineering firms, NASA, and
    non-profit organizations. The expanded special section on graduate
    schools highlights a myriad of programs ranging from space manufacturing
    to space policy. Additional sections include tips on becoming an
    astronaut and listings of NASA Space Grant Fellowships and Consortia, as
    well as NASA Centers for the Commercial Development of Space.

    To order send check or money order made payable to Princeton Planetary
    Society for $4 per copy, plus $1 per copy for shipping and handling
    (non-US customers send an International Money Order payable in US
    dollars) to:

    Princeton Planetary Society
    315 West College
    Princeton University
    Princeton, NJ  08544


    DC-X SINGLE-STAGE TO ORBIT (SSTO) PROGRAM

    SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
    suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
    mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
    orbit vehicle (called Delta Clipper) is uncertain at present.

    An collection of pictures and files relating to DC-X is available by
    anonymous FTP or email server in the directory

	bongo.cc.utexas.edu:pub/delta-clipper

    Chris W. Johnson (chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu) maintains the archive.


    HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

    Official names are decided by committees of the International
    Astronomical Union, and are not for sale. There are purely commercial
    organizations which will, for a fee, send you pretty certificates and
    star maps describing where to find "your" star. These organizations have
    absolutely no standing in the astronomical community and the names they
    assign are not used by anyone else. It's also likely that you won't be
    able to see "your" star without binoculars or a telescope. See the back
    pages of Astronomy or other amateur astronomy publications for contact
    info; one such organization may be found at:

	International Star Registry
	34523 Wilson Road
	Ingleside, IL 60041

    This is not an endorsement of ISR.


    LLNL "GREAT EXPLORATION"

    The LLNL "Great Exploration", a plan for an on-the-cheap space station,
    Lunar base, and Mars mission using inflatable space structures, excited
    a lot of interest on the net and still comes up from time to time. Some
    references cited during net discussion were:

	Avation Week Jan 22, 1990 for an article on the overall Great
	Exploration

	NASA Assessment of the LLNL Space Exploration Proposal and LLNL
	Responses by Dr. Lowell Wood LLNL Doc. No. SS 90-9. Their address
	is: PO Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 (the NASA authors are unknown).

	Briefing slides of a presentation to the NRC last December may be
	available. Write LLNL and ask.

	Conceptual Design Study for Modular Inflatable Space Structures, a
	final report for purchase order B098747 by ILC Dover INC. I don't
	know how to get this except from LLNL or ILC Dover. I don't have an
	address for ILC.


    LUNAR PROSPECTOR

    Lunar Exploration Inc. (LEI) is a non-profit corporation working on a
    privately funded lunar polar orbiter. Lunar Prospector is designed to
    perform a geochemical survey and search for frozen volatiles at the
    poles. A set of reference files describing the project is available in

	ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/LEI/*


    LUNAR SCIENCE AND ACTIVITIES

    Grant H Heiken, David T Vaniman, and Bevan M French (editors), "Lunar
    Sourcebook, A User's Guide to the Moon", Cambridge University Press
    1991, ISBN 0-521-33444-6; hardcover; expensive. A one-volume
    encyclopedia of essentially everything known about the Moon, reviewing
    current knowledge in considerable depth, with copious references. Heavy
    emphasis on geology, but a lot more besides, including considerable
    discussion of past lunar missions and practical issues relevant to
    future mission design. *The* reference book for the Moon; all others are
    obsolete.

    Wendell Mendell (ed), "Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st
    Century", $15. "Every serious student of lunar bases *must* have this
    book" - Bill Higgins. Available from:

	Lunar and Planetary Institute
	3303 NASA Road One
	Houston, TX 77058-4399
	If you want to order books, call (713)486-2172.

    Thomas A. Mutch, "Geology of the Moon: A Stratigraphic View", Princeton
    University Press, 1970. Information about the Lunar Orbiter missions,
    including maps of the coverage of the lunar nearside and farside by
    various Orbiters.


    ORBITING EARTH SATELLITE HISTORIES

    A list of Earth orbiting satellites (that are still in orbit) is
    available by anonymous FTP in:

	ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/Satellites


    SPACECRAFT MODELS

    "Space in Miniature #2: Gemini" by
	Michael J. Mackowski
	1621 Waterwood Lane, St. Louis, MO 63146
	$7.50

    Only 34pp but enough pictures & diagrams to interest more than just the
    modelling community, I feel.

    Marco's Miniatures of Dracut, Mass. have produced a 1/144 Skylab in an
    edition of 500 & a 1/48 Lunar Rover (same scale as Monogram and Revell
    Lunar Modules) in a similar edition. Prices are $45 for Skylab, $24 for
    LRV. Check with them for postage etc. I have no connection with them,
    but have found their service to be good and their stock of rare/old kits
    *is* impressive. Prices range from reasonable ($35 for Monogram 1/32
    scale Apollo CSM with cutaway details) to spectacular ($145 for Airfix
    Vostok).

	 Four Star Collectibles
	 P.O. Box 658
	 Dracut Mass 01826, USA.
	 (508)-957-0695.

    Voyager, HST, Viking, Lunar Rover etc. kits from:

	Lunar Models
	5120 Grisham
	Rowlett, Texas 75088
	(214)-475-4230

    As reviewed by Bob Kaplow:

	Peter Alway's book "Scale Model Rocketry" is now available. Mine
	arrived in the mail earlier this week. To get your own copy, send
	$19.95 + $2.50 s/h ($22.45 total) to:

			Peter Alway
			2830 Pittsfield
			Ann Arbor, MI 48104

	The book includes information on collecting scale data, construction
	of scale models, and several handy tables. Appendicies include plans
	for 3 sport scale models, a 1:9.22 D Region Tomahawk (BT50), a 1/40
	V-2 (BT60), and a 1/9.16 Aerobee 150A (BT55/60).

	I've only begun to study the book, but it certainly will be a
	valuable data source for many modellers. Most vehicles include
	several paragraphs of text describing the missions flown by the
	rocket, various specs including "NAR" engine classification, along
	with a dimensioned drawing, color layouts & paint pattern, and a
	black & white photograph.

	The vehicles included are the Aerobee 150A, Aerobee 300, Aerobee Hi,
	Arcas, Asp, Astrobee 1500, Astrobee D, Atlas Centaur, Atlas-Agena,
	Atlas-Score, Baby WAC, D-Region Tomahawk, Deacon Rockoon, Delta B,
	Delta E, Gemini-Titan II, Iris, Javelin, Juno 1, Juno 2, Little Joe
	1, Little Joe 2, Mercury-Atlas, Mercury-Redstone, Nike-Apache,
	Nike-Asp, Nike-Cajun, Nike-Deacon, Nike-Tomahawk, RAM B, Saturn 1
	Block 1, Saturn 1 Block 2, Saturn 1B, Saturn 5, Scout, Standard
	Aerobee, Terrapin, Thor-Able, Titan III C, Titan III E, Trailblazer
	1, V-2, Vanguard, Viking Model 1, Viking Model 2, and Wac Corporal.


    ROCKET PROPULSION

	George P. Sutton, "Rocket Propulsion Elements", 5th edn,
	Wiley-Interscience 1986, ISBN 0-471-80027-9. Pricey textbook. The
	best (nearly the only) modern introduction to the technical side of
	rocketry. A good place to start if you want to know the details. Not
	for the math-shy. Straight chemical rockets, essentially nothing on
	more advanced propulsion (although earlier editions reportedly had
	some coverage).

	Dieter K. Huzel and David H. Huang, "Design of Liquid Propellant
	Rocket Engines", NASA SP-125.
	NTIS N71-29405		PC A20/MF A01	1971  461p
	Out of print; reproductions may be obtained through the NTIS
	(expensive). The complete and authoritative guide to designing
	liquid-fuel engines. Reference #1 in most chapters of Sutton. Heavy
	emphasis on practical issues, what works and what doesn't, what the
	typical values of the fudge factors are. Stiff reading, massive
	detail; written for rocket engineers by rocket engineers.


    SPACECRAFT DESIGN

	Brij N. Agrawal, "Design of Geosynchronous Spacecraft",
	Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-200114-4.

	James R. Wertz ed, "Spacecraft Attitude Determination and
	Control", Kluwer, ISBN 90-277-1204-2.

	P.R.K. Chetty, "Satellite Technology and its Applications",
	McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-8306-9688-1.

	James R. Wertz and Wiley J. Larson (editors), "Space Mission
	Analysis and Design", Kluwer Academic Publishers
	(Dordrecht/Boston/London) 1991, ISBN 0-7923-0971-5 (paperback), or
	0-7923-0970-7 (hardback).

	    This looks at system-level design of a spacecraft, rather than
	    detailed design. 23 chapters, 4 appendices, about 430 pages. It
	    leads the reader through the mission design and system-level
	    design of a fictitious earth-observation satellite, to
	    illustrate the principles that it tries to convey. Warning:
	    although the book is chock-full of many useful reference tables,
	    some of the numbers in at least one of those tables (launch
	    costs for various launchers) appear to be quite wrong. Can be
	    ordered by telephone, using a credit card; Kluwer's phone number
	    is (617)-871-6600. Cost $34.50.


    ESOTERIC PROPULSION SCHEMES (SOLAR SAILS, LASERS, FUSION...)

    This needs more and more up-to-date references, but it's a start.

    ANTIMATTER:

	"Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion", Robert Forward
	    AFRPL TR-85-034 from the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
	    (AFRPL/XRX, Stop 24, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523-5000).
	    NTIS AD-A160 734/0	   PC A10/MF A01
	    PC => Paper copy, A10 => $US57.90 -- or maybe Price Code?
	    MF => MicroFiche, A01 => $US13.90

	    Technical study on making, holding, and using antimatter for
	    near-term (30-50 years) propulsion systems. Excellent
	    bibliography. Forward is the best-known proponent
	    of antimatter.

	    This also may be available as UDR-TR-85-55 from the contractor,
	    the University of Dayton Research Institute, and DTIC AD-A160
	    from the Defense Technical Information Center, Defense Logistics
	    Agency, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22304-6145. And it's
	    also available from the NTIS, with yet another number.

	"Advanced Space Propulsion Study, Antiproton and Beamed Power
	    Propulsion", Robert Forward

	    AFAL TR-87-070 from the Air Force Astronautics Laboratory, DTIC
	    #AD-A189 218.
	    NTIS AD-A189 218/1	  PC A10/MF A01

	    Summarizes the previous paper, goes into detail on beamed power
	    systems including " 1) pellet, microwave, and laser beamed power
	    systems for intersteller transport; 2) a design for a
	    near-relativistic laser-pushed lightsail using near-term laser
	    technology; 3) a survey of laser thermal propulsion, tether
	    transportation systems, antiproton annihilation propulsion,
	    exotic applications of solar sails, and laser-pushed
	    interstellar lightsails; 4) the status of antiproton
	    annihilation propulsion as of 1986; and 5) the prospects for
	    obtaining antimatter ions heavier than antiprotons." Again,
	    there is an extensive bibliography.

	    "Application of Antimatter - Electric Power to Interstellar
	    Propulsion", G. D. Nordley, JBIS Interstellar Studies issue of
	    6/90.

    BUSSARD RAMJETS AND RELATED METHODS:

	G. L. Matloff and A. J. Fennelly, "Interstellar Applications and
	Limitations of Several Electrostatic/Electromagnetic Ion Collection
	Techniques", JBIS 30 (1977):213-222

	N. H. Langston, "The Erosion of Interstellar Drag Screens", JBIS 26
	(1973): 481-484

	C. Powell, "Flight Dynamics of the Ram-Augmented Interstellar
	Rocket", JBIS 28 (1975):553-562

	A. R. Martin, "The Effects of Drag on Relativistic Spacefight", JBIS
	25 (1972):643-652

    FUSION:

	"A Laser Fusion Rocket for Interplanetary Propulsion", Roderick Hyde,
	LLNL report UCRL-88857. (Contact the Technical Information Dept. at
	Livermore)

	    Fusion Pellet design: Fuel selection. Energy loss mechanisms.
	    Pellet compression metrics. Thrust Chamber: Magnetic nozzle.
	    Shielding. Tritium breeding. Thermal modeling. Fusion Driver
	    (lasers, particle beams, etc): Heat rejection. Vehicle Summary:
	    Mass estimates. Vehicle Performance: Interstellar travel
	    required exhaust velocities at the limit of fusion's capability.
	    Interplanetary missions are limited by power/weight ratio.
	    Trajectory modeling. Typical mission profiles. References,
	    including the 1978 report in JBIS, "Project Daedalus", and
	    several on ICF and driver technology.

	"Fusion as Electric Propulsion", Robert W. Bussard, Journal of
	Propulsion and Power, Vol. 6, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1990

	    Fusion rocket engines are analyzed as electric propulsion
	    systems, with propulsion thrust-power-input-power ratio (the
	    thrust-power "gain" G(t)) much greater than unity. Gain values
	    of conventional (solar, fission) electric propulsion systems are
	    always quite small (e.g., G(t)<0.8). With these, "high-thrust"
	    interplanetary flight is not possible, because system
	    acceleration (a(t)) capabilities are always less than the local
	    gravitational acceleration. In contrast, gain values 50-100
	    times higher are found for some fusion concepts, which offer
	    "high-thrust" flight capability. One performance example shows a
	    53.3 day (34.4 powered; 18.9 coast), one-way transit time with
	    19% payload for a single-stage Earth/Mars vehicle. Another shows
	    the potential for high acceleration (a(t)=0.55g(o)) flight in
	    Earth/moon space.

	"The QED Engine System: Direct Electric Fusion-Powered Systems for
	Aerospace Flight Propulsion" by Robert W. Bussard, EMC2-1190-03,
	available from Energy/Matter Conversion Corp., 9100 A. Center
	Street, Manassas, VA 22110.

	    [This is an introduction to the application of Bussard's version
	    of the Farnsworth/Hirsch electrostatic confinement fusion
	    technology to propulsion. 1500<Isp<5000 sec. Farnsworth/Hirsch
	    demonstrated a 10**10 neutron flux with their device back in
	    1969 but it was dropped when panic ensued over the surprising
	    stability of the Soviet Tokamak. Hirsch, responsible for the
	    panic, has recently recanted and is back working on QED. -- Jim
	    Bowery]

	"PLASMAKtm Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications", by
	Paul M. Koloc, Eight ANS Topical Meeting on Technology of Fusion
	Energy, special issue FUSION TECHNOLOGY, March 1989.

	    Aneutronic energy (fusion with little or negligible neutron
	    flux) requires plasma pressures and stable confinement times
	    larger than can be delivered by current approaches. If plasma
	    pressures appropriate to burn times on the order of milliseconds
	    could be achieved in aneutronic fuels, then high power densities
	    and very compact, realtively clean burning engines for space and
	    other special applications would be at hand. The PLASMAKtm
	    innovation will make this possible; its unique pressure
	    efficient structure, exceptional stability, fluid-mechanically
	    compressible Mantle and direct inductive MHD electric power
	    conversion advantages are described. Peak burn densities of tens
	    of megawats per cc give it compactness even in the
	    multi-gigawatt electric output size. Engineering advantages
	    indicate a rapid development schedule at very modest cost. [I
	    strongly recommend that people take this guy seriously. Bob
	    Hirsch, the primary proponent of the Tokamak, has recently
	    declared Koloc's PLASMAKtm precursor, the spheromak, to be one
	    of 3 promising fusion technologies that should be pursued rather
	    than Tokamak. Aside from the preceeding appeal to authority, the
	    PLASMAKtm looks like it finally models ball-lightning with solid
	    MHD physics. -- Jim Bowery]

    ION DRIVES:

	Retrieve files pub/SPACE/SPACELINK/6.5.2.* from the Ames SPACE
	archive; these deal with many aspects of ion drives and describe the
	SERT I and II missions, which flight-tested cesium ion thrusters in
	the 1960s and 70s. There are numerous references.

    MASS DRIVERS (COILGUNS, RAILGUNS):

	IEEE Transactions on Magnetics (for example, v. 27 no. 1, January
	1991 issue). Every so often they publish the proceedings of the
	Symposium on Electromagnetic Launcher Technology, including hundreds
	of papers on the subject. It's a good look at the state of the art,
	though perhaps not a good tutorial for beginners. Anybody know some
	good review papers?

    NUCLEAR ROCKETS (FISSION):

	"Technical Notes on Nuclear Rockets", by Bruce W. Knight and Donald
	Kingsbury, unpublished. May be available from: Donald Kingsbury,
	Math Dept., McGill University, PO Box 6070, Station A, Montreal,
	Quebec M3C 3G1 Canada.

    SOLAR SAILS:

	Starsailing. Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel. Louis Friedman,
	Wiley, New York, 1988, 146 pp., paper $9.95. (Not very technical,
	but an adequate overview.)

	"Roundtrip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-Pushed Lightsails
	(Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 21, pp. 187-95, Jan.-Feb.
	1984)

    TETHERS:

	_Tethers and Asteroids for Artificial Gravity Assist in the Solar
	System,_ by P.A. Penzo and H.L. Mayer., _Journal of Spacecraft
	and Rockets_ for Jan-Feb 1986.

	    Details how a spacecraft with a kevlar tether of the same mass
	    can change its velocity by up to slightly less than 1 km/sec. if
	    it is travelling under that velocity wrt a suitable asteroid.

    GENERAL:

	"Alternate Propulsion Energy Sources", Robert Forward
	    AFPRL TR-83-067.
	    NTIS AD-B088 771/1	  PC A07/MF A01   Dec 83 138p

	    Keywords: Propulsion energy, metastable helium, free-radical
	    hydrogen, solar pumped (sic) plasmas, antiproton annihiliation,
	    ionospheric lasers, solar sails, perforated sails, microwave
	    sails, quantum fluctuations, antimatter rockets... It's a wide,
	    if not deep, look at exotic energy sources which might be useful
	    for space propulsion. It also considers various kinds of laser
	    propulsion, metallic hydrogen, tethers, and unconventional
	    nuclear propulsion. The bibliographic information, pointing to
	    the research on all this stuff, belongs on every daydreamer's
	    shelf.

	Future Magic. Dr. Robert L. Forward, Avon, 1988. ISBN 0-380-89814-4.

	    Nontechnical discussion of tethers, antimatter, gravity control,
	    and even futher-out topics.


    SPY SATELLITES

    *Deep Black*, by William Burrows;
	"best modern general book for spysats."

    1) A Base For Debate: The US Satellite Station at Nurrungar, Des Ball,
    Allen and Unwin Australia, 1987 ISBN 0 04 355027 4 [ covers DSP early
    warning satellites]

    2) Pine Gap: Australia and the US Geostationary Signals intelligence
    satellite program, Des Ball, Allen and Unwin Australia, 1988 ISBN 0 04
    363002 5. [covers RHYOLITE/AQUACADE, CHALET/VORTEX, and MAGNUM signals
    intelligence satellites]

    3) Guardians: Strategic Reconnaissance Satellites, Curtis Peebles, 1987,
    Ian Allan, ISBN 0 7110 17654 [ good on MOL, military Salyut and Soviet
    satellites, less so on others. Tends to believe what he's told so flaws
    in discussion of DSP, RHYOLITE et al..]

    4) America's Secret Eyes In Space: The Keyhole Spy Satellite Program,
    Jeffrey Richelson, 1990, Harper and Row, ISBN 0 88730 285 8 [ in a class
    of its own, *the* historical reference on the KEYHOLE satellites]

    5) Secret Sentries in Space, Philip J Klass, 1971.
	"long out of print but well worth a look"


    SPACE SHUTTLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS

    %J Communications of the ACM
    %V 27
    %N 9
    %D September 1984
    %K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers

    %A Myron Kayton
    %T Avionics for Manned Spacecraft
    %J IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
    %V 25
    %N 6
    %D November 1989
    %P 786-827

    Other various AIAA and IEEE publications.

    Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience
    James E.  Tomayko
    1988?


    SETI COMPUTATION (SIGNAL PROCESSING)

    %A D. K. Cullers
    %A Ivan R. Linscott
    %A Bernard M. Oliver
    %T Signal Processing in SETI
    %J Communications of the ACM
    %V 28
    %N 11
    %D November 1984
    %P 1151-1163
    %K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]:
    Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]:
    Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]:
    astronomy
    General Terms: Design
    Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms,
    finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications,
    Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection,
    spectrum analysis


    AMATEUR SATELLIES & WEATHER SATELLITES

    A fairly long writeup on receiving and interpreting weather satellite
    photos is available from the Ames SPACE archive in
    pub/SPACE/FAQ/WeatherPhotos.

    The American Radio Relay League publication service offers the following
    references (also see the section on AMSAT in the space groups segment of
    the FAQ):

	ARRL Satellite Experimenters Handbook,		#3185, $20
	ARRL Weather Satellite Handbook,		#3193, $20
	IBM-PC software for Weather Satellite Handbook, #3290, $10

	AMSAT NA 5th Space Symposium,			#0739, $12
	AMSAT NA 6th Space Symposium,			#2219, $12

	Shipping is extra.

    The American Radio Relay League
    Publications Department
    225 Main Street
    Newington, CT 06111
    (203)-666-1541


    TIDES

    Srinivas Bettadpur contributed a writeup on tides, available from the
    Ames SPACE archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/Tides. It covers the following
    areas:

	- 2-D Example of Tidal Deformation
	- Treatment of Tidal Fields in Practice
	- Long term evolution of the Earth-Moon system under tides

    The writeup refers to the following texts:

	"Geophysical Geodesy" by K. Lambeck
	"Tides of the planet Earth" by P. Melchior

NEXT: FAQ #6/15 - Constants and equations for calculations

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59904
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules

Archive-name: space/schedule
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:23 $

SPACE SHUTTLE ANSWERS, LAUNCH SCHEDULES, TV COVERAGE

    SHUTTLE LAUNCHINGS AND LANDINGS; SCHEDULES AND HOW TO SEE THEM

    Shuttle operations are discussed in the Usenet group sci.space.shuttle,
    and Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version
    of the shuttle manifest (launch dates and other information)
    periodically there. The manifest is also available from the Ames SPACE
    archive in SPACE/FAQ/manifest. The portion of his manifest formerly
    included in this FAQ has been removed; please refer to his posting or
    the archived copy. For the most up to date information on upcoming
    missions, call (407) 867-INFO (867-4636) at Kennedy Space Center.

    Official NASA shuttle status reports are posted to sci.space.news
    frequently.


    WHY DOES THE SHUTTLE ROLL JUST AFTER LIFTOFF?

    The following answer and translation are provided by Ken Jenks
    (kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov).

    The "Ascent Guidance and Flight Control Training Manual," ASC G&C 2102,
    says:

	"During the vertical rise phase, the launch pad attitude is
	commanded until an I-loaded V(rel) sufficient to assure launch tower
	clearance is achieved. Then, the tilt maneuver (roll program)
	orients the vehicle to a heads down attitude required to generate a
	negative q-alpha, which in turn alleviates structural loading. Other
	advantages with this attitude are performance gain, decreased abort
	maneuver complexity, improved S-band look angles, and crew view of
	the horizon. The tilt maneuver is also required to start gaining
	downrange velocity to achieve the main engine cutoff (MECO) target
	in second stage."

    This really is a good answer, but it's couched in NASA jargon. I'll try
    to interpret.

    1)	We wait until the Shuttle clears the tower before rolling.

    2)	Then, we roll the Shuttle around so that the angle of attack
	between the wind caused by passage through the atmosphere (the
	"relative wind") and the chord of the wings (the imaginary line
	between the leading edge and the trailing edge) is a slightly
	negative angle ("a negative q-alpha").	This causes a little bit of
	"downward" force (toward the belly of the Orbiter, or the +Z
	direction) and this force "alleviates structural loading."
	We have to be careful about those wings -- they're about the
	most "delicate" part of the vehicle.

    3)	The new attitude (after the roll) also allows us to carry more
	mass to orbit, or to achieve a higher orbit with the same mass, or
	to change the orbit to a higher or lower inclination than would be
	the case if we didn't roll ("performance gain").

    4)	The new attitude allows the crew to fly a less complicated
	flight path if they had to execute one of the more dangerous abort
	maneuvers, the Return To Launch Site ("decreased abort maneuver
	complexity").

    5)	The new attitude improves the ability for ground-based radio
	antennae to have a good line-of-sight signal with the S-band radio
	antennae on the Orbiter ("improved S-band look angles").

    6)	The new attitude allows the crew to see the horizon, which is a
	helpful (but not mandatory) part of piloting any flying machine.

    7)	The new attitude orients the Shuttle so that the body is
	more nearly parallel with the ground, and the nose to the east
	(usually).  This allows the thrust from the engines to add velocity
	in the correct direction to eventually achieve orbit.  Remember:
	velocity is a vector quantity made of both speed and direction.
	The Shuttle has to have a large horizontal component to its
	velocity and a very small vertical component to attain orbit.

    This all begs the question, "Why isn't the launch pad oriented to give
    this nice attitude to begin with?  Why does the Shuttle need to roll to
    achieve that attitude?"  The answer is that the pads were leftovers
    from the Apollo days.  The Shuttle straddles two flame trenches -- one
    for the Solid Rocket Motor exhaust, one for the Space Shuttle Main
    Engine exhaust.  (You can see the effects of this on any daytime
    launch.  The SRM exhaust is dirty gray garbage, and the SSME exhaust is
    fluffy white steam.  Watch for the difference between the "top"
    [Orbiter side] and the "bottom" [External Tank side] of the stack.) The
    access tower and other support and service structure are all oriented
    basically the same way they were for the Saturn V's.  (A side note: the
    Saturn V's also had a roll program.  Don't ask me why -- I'm a Shuttle
    guy.)

    I checked with a buddy in Ascent Dynamics.	He added that the "roll
    maneuver" is really a maneuver in all three axes: roll, pitch and yaw.
    The roll component of that maneuver is performed for the reasons
    stated.  The pitch component controls loading on the wings by keeping
    the angle of attack (q-alpha) within a tight tolerance.  The yaw
    component is used to determine the orbital inclination.  The total
    maneuver is really expressed as a "quaternion," a grad-level-math
    concept for combining all three rotation matrices in one four-element
    array.


    HOW TO RECEIVE THE NASA TV CHANNEL, NASA SELECT

    NASA SELECT is broadcast by satellite. If you have access to a satellite
    dish, you can find SELECT on Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72
    degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. F2R is stationed
    over the Atlantic, and is increasingly difficult to receive from
    California and points west. During events of special interest (e.g.
    shuttle missions), SELECT is sometimes broadcast on a second satellite
    for these viewers.

    If you can't get a satellite feed, some cable operators carry SELECT.
    It's worth asking if yours doesn't.

    The SELECT schedule is found in the NASA Headline News which is
    frequently posted to sci.space.news. Generally it carries press
    conferences, briefings by NASA officials, and live coverage of shuttle
    missions and planetary encounters. SELECT has recently begun carrying
    much more secondary material (associated with SPACELINK) when missions
    are not being covered.


    AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR SHUTTLE MISSIONS

    The following are believed to rebroadcast space shuttle mission audio:

	W6FXN  - Los Angeles
	K6MF   - Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California
	WA3NAN - Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland.
	W5RRR  - Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, Texas
	W6VIO  - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, California.
	W1AW Voice Bulletins

	Station    VHF	   10m	   15m	   20m	  40m	 80m
	------	 ------  ------  ------  ------  -----	-----
	W6FXN	 145.46
	K6MF	 145.585			 7.165	3.840
	WA3NAN	 147.45  28.650  21.395  14.295  7.185	3.860
	W5RRR	 146.64  28.400  21.350  14.280  7.227	3.850
	W6VIO	 224.04		 21.340  14.270
	W6VIO	 224.04		 21.280  14.282  7.165	3.840
	W1AW		 28.590  21.390  14.290  7.290	3.990

    W5RRR transmits mission audio on 146.64, a special event station on the
    other frequencies supplying Keplerian Elements and mission information.

    W1AW also transmits on 147.555, 18.160. No mission audio but they
    transmit voice bulletins at 0245 and 0545 UTC.

    Frequencies in the 10-20m bands require USB and frequencies in the 40
    and 80m bands LSB. Use FM for the VHF frequencies.

    [This item was most recently updated courtesy of Gary Morris
    (g@telesoft.com, KK6YB, N5QWC)]


    SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER FUEL COMPOSITION

    Reference: "Shuttle Flight Operations Manual" Volume 8B - Solid Rocket
    Booster Systems, NASA Document JSC-12770

    Propellant Composition (percent)

    Ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer)			69.6
    Aluminum						16
    Iron Oxide (burn rate catalyst)			0.4
    Polybutadiene-acrilic acid-acrylonitrile (a rubber) 12.04
    Epoxy curing agent					1.96

    End reference

    Comment: The aluminum, rubber, and epoxy all burn with the oxidizer.

NEXT: FAQ #10/15 - Historical planetary probes

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59905
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 10/15 - Planetary Probe History

Archive-name: space/probe
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:19 $

PLANETARY PROBES - HISTORICAL MISSIONS

    This section was lightly adapted from an original posting by Larry Klaes
    (klaes@verga.enet.dec.com), mostly minor formatting changes. Matthew
    Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu) contributed the section on
    Voyager, and the section on Sakigake was obtained from ISAS material
    posted by Yoshiro Yamada (yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp).

US PLANETARY MISSIONS


    MARINER (VENUS, MARS, & MERCURY FLYBYS AND ORBITERS)

    MARINER 1, the first U.S. attempt to send a spacecraft to Venus, failed
    minutes after launch in 1962. The guidance instructions from the ground
    stopped reaching the rocket due to a problem with its antenna, so the
    onboard computer took control. However, there turned out to be a bug in
    the guidance software, and the rocket promptly went off course, so the
    Range Safety Officer destroyed it. Although the bug is sometimes claimed
    to have been an incorrect FORTRAN DO statement, it was actually a
    transcription error in which the bar (indicating smoothing) was omitted
    from the expression "R-dot-bar sub n" (nth smoothed value of derivative
    of radius). This error led the software to treat normal minor variations
    of velocity as if they were serious, leading to incorrect compensation.

    MARINER 2 became the first successful probe to flyby Venus in December
    of 1962, and it returned information which confirmed that Venus is a
    very hot (800 degrees Fahrenheit, now revised to 900 degrees F.) world
    with a cloud-covered atmosphere composed primarily of carbon dioxide
    (sulfuric acid was later confirmed in 1978).

    MARINER 3, launched on November 5, 1964, was lost when its protective
    shroud failed to eject as the craft was placed into interplanetary
    space. Unable to collect the Sun's energy for power from its solar
    panels, the probe soon died when its batteries ran out and is now in
    solar orbit. It was intended for a Mars flyby with MARINER 4.

    MARINER 4, the sister probe to MARINER 3, did reach Mars in 1965 and
    took the first close-up images of the Martian surface (22 in all) as it
    flew by the planet. The probe found a cratered world with an atmosphere
    much thinner than previously thought. Many scientists concluded from
    this preliminary scan that Mars was a "dead" world in both the
    geological and biological sense.

    MARINER 5 was sent to Venus in 1967. It reconfirmed the data on that
    planet collected five years earlier by MARINER 2, plus the information
    that Venus' atmospheric pressure at its surface is at least 90 times
    that of Earth's, or the equivalent of being 3,300 feet under the surface
    of an ocean.

    MARINER 6 and 7 were sent to Mars in 1969 and expanded upon the work
    done by MARINER 4 four years earlier. However, they failed to take away
    the concept of Mars as a "dead" planet, first made from the basic
    measurements of MARINER 4.

    MARINER 8 ended up in the Atlantic Ocean in 1971 when the rocket
    launcher autopilot failed.

    MARINER 9, the sister probe to MARINER 8, became the first craft to
    orbit Mars in 1971. It returned information on the Red Planet that no
    other probe had done before, revealing huge volcanoes on the Martian
    surface, as well as giant canyon systems, and evidence that water once
    flowed across the planet. The probe also took the first detailed closeup
    images of Mars' two small moons, Phobos and Deimos.

    MARINER 10 used Venus as a gravity assist to Mercury in 1974. The probe
    did return the first close-up images of the Venusian atmosphere in
    ultraviolet, revealing previously unseen details in the cloud cover,
    plus the fact that the entire cloud system circles the planet in four
    Earth days. MARINER 10 eventually made three flybys of Mercury from 1974
    to 1975 before running out of attitude control gas. The probe revealed
    Mercury as a heavily cratered world with a mass much greater than
    thought. This would seem to indicate that Mercury has an iron core which
    makes up 75 percent of the entire planet.


    PIONEER (MOON, SUN, VENUS, JUPITER, and SATURN FLYBYS AND ORBITERS)

    PIONEER 1 through 3 failed to meet their main objective - to photograph
    the Moon close-up - but they did reach far enough into space to provide
    new information on the area between Earth and the Moon, including new
    data on the Van Allen radiation belts circling Earth. All three craft
    had failures with their rocket launchers. PIONEER 1 was launched on
    October 11, 1958, PIONEER 2 on November 8, and PIONEER 3 on December 6.

    PIONEER 4 was a Moon probe which missed the Moon and became the first
    U.S. spacecraft to orbit the Sun in 1959. PIONEER 5 was originally
    designed to flyby Venus, but the mission was scaled down and it instead
    studied the interplanetary environment between Venus and Earth out to
    36.2 million kilometers in 1960, a record until MARINER 2. PIONEER 6
    through 9 were placed into solar orbit from 1965 to 1968: PIONEER 6, 7,
    and 8 are still transmitting information at this time. PIONEER E (would
    have been number 10) suffered a launch failure in 1969.

    PIONEER 10 became the first spacecraft to flyby Jupiter in 1973. PIONEER
    11 followed it in 1974, and then went on to become the first probe to
    study Saturn in 1979. Both vehicles should continue to function through
    1995 and are heading off into interstellar space, the first craft ever
    to do so.

    PIONEER Venus 1 (1978) (also known as PIONEER Venus Orbiter, or PIONEER
    12) burned up in the Venusian atmosphere on October 8, 1992. PVO made
    the first radar studies of the planet's surface via probe. PIONEER Venus
    2 (also known as PIONEER 13) sent four small probes into the atmosphere
    in December of 1978. The main spacecraft bus burned up high in the
    atmosphere, while the four probes descended by parachute towards the
    surface. Though none were expected to survive to the surface, the Day
    probe did make it and transmitted for 67.5 minutes on the ground before
    its batteries failed.


    RANGER (LUNAR LANDER AND IMPACT MISSIONS)

    RANGER 1 and 2 were test probes for the RANGER lunar impact series. They
    were meant for high Earth orbit testing in 1961, but rocket problems
    left them in useless low orbits which quickly decayed.

    RANGER 3, launched on January 26, 1962, was intended to land an
    instrument capsule on the surface of the Moon, but problems during the
    launch caused the probe to miss the Moon and head into solar orbit.
    RANGER 3 did try to take some images of the Moon as it flew by, but the
    camera was unfortunately aimed at deep space during the attempt.

    RANGER 4, launched April 23, 1962, had the same purpose as RANGER 3, but
    suffered technical problems enroute and crashed on the lunar farside,
    the first U.S. probe to reach the Moon, albeit without returning data.

    RANGER 5, launched October 18, 1962 and similar to RANGER 3 and 4, lost
    all solar panel and battery power enroute and eventually missed the Moon
    and drifted off into solar orbit.

    RANGER 6 through 9 had more modified lunar missions: They were to send
    back live images of the lunar surface as they headed towards an impact
    with the Moon. RANGER 6 failed this objective in 1964 when its cameras
    did not operate. RANGER 7 through 9 performed well, becoming the first
    U.S. lunar probes to return thousands of lunar images through 1965.


    LUNAR ORBITER (LUNAR SURFACE PHOTOGRAPHY)

    LUNAR ORBITER 1 through 5 were designed to orbit the Moon and image
    various sites being studied as landing areas for the manned APOLLO
    missions of 1969-1972. The probes also contributed greatly to our
    understanding of lunar surface features, particularly the lunar farside.
    All five probes of the series, launched from 1966 to 1967, were
    essentially successful in their missions. They were the first U.S.
    probes to orbit the Moon. All LOs were eventually crashed into the lunar
    surface to avoid interference with the manned APOLLO missions.


    SURVEYOR (LUNAR SOFT LANDERS)

    The SURVEYOR series were designed primarily to see if an APOLLO lunar
    module could land on the surface of the Moon without sinking into the
    soil (before this time, it was feared by some that the Moon was covered
    in great layers of dust, which would not support a heavy landing
    vehicle). SURVEYOR was successful in proving that the lunar surface was
    strong enough to hold up a spacecraft from 1966 to 1968.

    Only SURVEYOR 2 and 4 were unsuccessful missions. The rest became the
    first U.S. probes to soft land on the Moon, taking thousands of images
    and scooping the soil for analysis. APOLLO 12 landed 600 feet from
    SURVEYOR 3 in 1969 and returned parts of the craft to Earth. SURVEYOR 7,
    the last of the series, was a purely scientific mission which explored
    the Tycho crater region in 1968.


    VIKING (MARS ORBITERS AND LANDERS)

    VIKING 1 was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida on August 20, 1975 on
    a TITAN 3E-CENTAUR D1 rocket. The probe went into Martian orbit on June
    19, 1976, and the lander set down on the western slopes of Chryse
    Planitia on July 20, 1976. It soon began its programmed search for
    Martian micro-organisms (there is still debate as to whether the probes
    found life there or not), and sent back incredible color panoramas of
    its surroundings. One thing scientists learned was that Mars' sky was
    pinkish in color, not dark blue as they originally thought (the sky is
    pink due to sunlight reflecting off the reddish dust particles in the
    thin atmosphere). The lander set down among a field of red sand and
    boulders stretching out as far as its cameras could image.

    The VIKING 1 orbiter kept functioning until August 7, 1980, when it ran
    out of attitude-control propellant. The lander was switched into a
    weather-reporting mode, where it had been hoped it would keep
    functioning through 1994; but after November 13, 1982, an errant command
    had been sent to the lander accidentally telling it to shut down until
    further orders. Communication was never regained again, despite the
    engineers' efforts through May of 1983.

    An interesting side note: VIKING 1's lander has been designated the
    Thomas A. Mutch Memorial Station in honor of the late leader of the
    lander imaging team. The National Air and Space Museum in Washington,
    D.C. is entrusted with the safekeeping of the Mutch Station Plaque until
    it can be attached to the lander by a manned expedition.

    VIKING 2 was launched on September 9, 1975, and arrived in Martian orbit
    on August 7, 1976. The lander touched down on September 3, 1976 in
    Utopia Planitia. It accomplished essentially the same tasks as its
    sister lander, with the exception that its seisometer worked, recording
    one marsquake. The orbiter had a series of attitude-control gas leaks in
    1978, which prompted it being shut down that July. The lander was shut
    down on April 12, 1980.

    The orbits of both VIKING orbiters should decay around 2025.


    VOYAGER (OUTER PLANET FLYBYS)

    VOYAGER 1 was launched September 5, 1977, and flew past Jupiter on March
    5, 1979 and by Saturn on November 13, 1980. VOYAGER 2 was launched
    August 20, 1977 (before VOYAGER 1), and flew by Jupiter on August 7,
    1979, by Saturn on August 26, 1981, by Uranus on January 24, 1986, and
    by Neptune on August 8, 1989. VOYAGER 2 took advantage of a rare
    once-every-189-years alignment to slingshot its way from outer planet to
    outer planet. VOYAGER 1 could, in principle, have headed towards Pluto,
    but JPL opted for the sure thing of a Titan close up.

    Between the two probes, our knowledge of the 4 giant planets, their
    satellites, and their rings has become immense. VOYAGER 1&2 discovered
    that Jupiter has complicated atmospheric dynamics, lightning and
    aurorae. Three new satellites were discovered. Two of the major
    surprises were that Jupiter has rings and that Io has active sulfurous
    volcanoes, with major effects on the Jovian magnetosphere.

    When the two probes reached Saturn, they discovered over 1000 ringlets
    and 7 satellites, including the predicted shepherd satellites that keep
    the rings stable. The weather was tame compared with Jupiter: massive
    jet streams with minimal variance (a 33-year great white spot/band cycle
    is known). Titan's atmosphere was smoggy. Mimas' appearance was
    startling: one massive impact crater gave it the Death Star appearance.
    The big surprise here was the stranger aspects of the rings. Braids,
    kinks, and spokes were both unexpected and difficult to explain.

    VOYAGER 2, thanks to heroic engineering and programming efforts,
    continued the mission to Uranus and Neptune. Uranus itself was highly
    monochromatic in appearance. One oddity was that its magnetic axis was
    found to be highly skewed from the already completely skewed rotational
    axis, giving Uranus a peculiar magnetosphere. Icy channels were found on
    Ariel, and Miranda was a bizarre patchwork of different terrains. 10
    satellites and one more ring were discovered.

    In contrast to Uranus, Neptune was found to have rather active weather,
    including numerous cloud features. The ring arcs turned out to be bright
    patches on one ring. Two other rings, and 6 other satellites, were
    discovered. Neptune's magnetic axis was also skewed. Triton had a
    canteloupe appearance and geysers. (What's liquid at 38K?)

    The two VOYAGERs are expected to last for about two more decades. Their
    on-target journeying gives negative evidence about possible planets
    beyond Pluto. Their next major scientific discovery should be the
    location of the heliopause.


SOVIET PLANETARY MISSIONS

    Since there have been so many Soviet probes to the Moon, Venus, and
    Mars, I will highlight only the primary missions:


    SOVIET LUNAR PROBES

    LUNA 1 - Lunar impact attempt in 1959, missed Moon and became first
	     craft in solar orbit.
    LUNA 2 - First craft to impact on lunar surface in 1959.
    LUNA 3 - Took first images of lunar farside in 1959.
    ZOND 3 - Took first images of lunar farside in 1965 since LUNA 3. Was
	     also a test for future Mars missions.
    LUNA 9 - First probe to soft land on the Moon in 1966, returned images
	     from surface.
    LUNA 10 - First probe to orbit the Moon in 1966.
    LUNA 13 - Second successful Soviet lunar soft landing mission in 1966.
    ZOND 5 - First successful circumlunar craft. ZOND 6 through 8
	     accomplished similar missions through 1970. The probes were
	     unmanned tests of a manned orbiting SOYUZ-type lunar vehicle.
    LUNA 16 - First probe to land on Moon and return samples of lunar soil
	      to Earth in 1970. LUNA 20 accomplished similar mission in
	      1972.
    LUNA 17 - Delivered the first unmanned lunar rover to the Moon's
	      surface, LUNOKHOD 1, in 1970. A similar feat was accomplished
	      with LUNA 21/LUNOKHOD 2 in 1973.
    LUNA 24 - Last Soviet lunar mission to date. Returned soil samples in
	      1976.


    SOVIET VENUS PROBES

    VENERA 1 - First acknowledged attempt at Venus mission. Transmissions
	       lost enroute in 1961.
    VENERA 2 - Attempt to image Venus during flyby mission in tandem with
	       VENERA 3. Probe ceased transmitting just before encounter in
	       February of 1966. No images were returned.
    VENERA 3 - Attempt to place a lander capsule on Venusian surface.
	       Transmissions ceased just before encounter and entire probe
	       became the first craft to impact on another planet in 1966.
    VENERA 4 - First probe to successfully return data while descending
	       through Venusian atmosphere. Crushed by air pressure before
	       reaching surface in 1967. VENERA 5 and 6 mission profiles
	       similar in 1969.
    VENERA 7 - First probe to return data from the surface of another planet
	       in 1970. VENERA 8 accomplished a more detailed mission in
	       1972.
    VENERA 9 - Sent first image of Venusian surface in 1975. Was also the
	       first probe to orbit Venus. VENERA 10 accomplished similar
	       mission.
    VENERA 13 - Returned first color images of Venusian surface in 1982.
		VENERA 14 accomplished similar mission.
    VENERA 15 - Accomplished radar mapping with VENERA 16 of sections of
		planet's surface in 1983 more detailed than PVO.
    VEGA 1 - Accomplished with VEGA 2 first balloon probes of Venusian
	     atmosphere in 1985, including two landers. Flyby buses went on
	     to become first spacecraft to study Comet Halley close-up in
	     March of 1986.


    SOVIET MARS PROBES

    MARS 1 - First acknowledged Mars probe in 1962. Transmissions ceased
	     enroute the following year.
    ZOND 2 - First possible attempt to place a lander capsule on Martian
	     surface. Probe signals ceased enroute in 1965.
    MARS 2 - First Soviet Mars probe to land - albeit crash - on Martian
	     surface. Orbiter section first Soviet probe to circle the Red
	     Planet in 1971.
    MARS 3 - First successful soft landing on Martian surface, but lander
	     signals ceased after 90 seconds in 1971.
    MARS 4 - Attempt at orbiting Mars in 1974, braking rockets failed to
	     fire, probe went on into solar orbit.
    MARS 5 - First fully successful Soviet Mars mission, orbiting Mars in
	     1974. Returned images of Martian surface comparable to U.S.
	     probe MARINER 9.
    MARS 6 - Landing attempt in 1974. Lander crashed into the surface.
    MARS 7 - Lander missed Mars completely in 1974, went into a solar orbit
	     with its flyby bus.
    PHOBOS 1 - First attempt to land probes on surface of Mars' largest
	       moon, Phobos. Probe failed enroute in 1988 due to
	       human/computer error.
    PHOBOS 2 - Attempt to land probes on Martian moon Phobos. The probe did
	       enter Mars orbit in early 1989, but signals ceased one week
	       before scheduled Phobos landing.

    While there has been talk of Soviet Jupiter, Saturn, and even
    interstellar probes within the next thirty years, no major steps have
    yet been taken with these projects. More intensive studies of the Moon,
    Mars, Venus, and various comets have been planned for the 1990s, and a
    Mercury mission to orbit and land probes on the tiny world has been
    planned for 2003. How the many changes in the former Soviet Union (now
    the Commonwealth of Independent States) will affect the future of their
    space program remains to be seen.


JAPANESE PLANETARY MISSIONS

    SAKIGAKE (MS-T5) was launched from the Kagoshima Space Center by ISAS on
    January 8 1985, and approached Halley's Comet within about 7 million km
    on March 11, 1986. The spacecraft is carrying three instru- ments to
    measure interplanetary magnetic field/plasma waves/solar wind, all of
    which work normally now, so ISAS made an Earth swingby by Sakigake on
    January 8, 1992 into an orbit similar to the earth's. The closest
    approach was at 23h08m47s (JST=UTC+9h) on January 8, 1992. The
    geocentric distance was 88,997 km. This is the first planet-swingby for
    a Japanese spacecraft.

    During the approach, Sakigake observed the geotail. Some geotail
    passages will be scheduled in some years hence. The second Earth-swingby
    will be on June 14, 1993 (at 40 Re (Earth's radius)), and the third
    October 28, 1994 (at 86 Re).


    HITEN, a small lunar probe, was launched into Earth orbit on January 24,
    1990. The spacecraft was then known as MUSES-A, but was renamed to Hiten
    once in orbit. The 430 lb probe looped out from Earth and made its first
    lunary flyby on March 19, where it dropped off its 26 lb midget
    satellite, HAGOROMO. Japan at this point became the third nation to
    orbit a satellite around the Moon, joining the Unites States and USSR.

    The smaller spacecraft, Hagoromo, remained in orbit around the Moon. An
    apparently broken transistor radio caused the Japanese space scientists
    to lose track of it. Hagoromo's rocket motor fired on schedule on March
    19, but the spacecraft's tracking transmitter failed immediately. The
    rocket firing of Hagoromo was optically confirmed using the Schmidt
    camera (105-cm, F3.1) at the Kiso Observatory in Japan.

    Hiten made multiple lunar flybys at approximately monthly intervals and
    performed aerobraking experiments using the Earth's atmosphere. Hiten
    made a close approach to the moon at 22:33 JST (UTC+9h) on February 15,
    1992 at the height of 423 km from the moon's surface (35.3N, 9.7E) and
    fired its propulsion system for about ten minutes to put the craft into
    lunar orbit. The following is the orbital calculation results after the
    approach:

	Apoapsis Altitude: about 49,400 km
	Periapsis Altitude: about 9,600 km
	Inclination	: 34.7 deg (to ecliptic plane)
	Period		: 4.7 days


PLANETARY MISSION REFERENCES

    I also recommend reading the following works, categorized in three
    groups: General overviews, specific books on particular space missions,
    and periodical sources on space probes. This list is by no means
    complete; it is primarily designed to give you places to start your
    research through generally available works on the subject. If anyone can
    add pertinent works to the list, it would be greatly appreciated.

    Though naturally I recommend all the books listed below, I think it
    would be best if you started out with the general overview books, in
    order to give you a clear idea of the history of space exploration in
    this area. I also recommend that you pick up some good, up-to-date
    general works on astronomy and the Sol system, to give you some extra
    background. Most of these books and periodicals can be found in any good
    public and university library. Some of the more recently published works
    can also be purchased in and/or ordered through any good mass- market
    bookstore.

    General Overviews (in alphabetical order by author):

      J. Kelly Beatty et al, THE NEW SOLAR SYSTEM, 1990.

      Merton E. Davies and Bruce C. Murray, THE VIEW FROM SPACE:
       PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPLORATION OF THE PLANETS, 1971

      Kenneth Gatland, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE
       TECHNOLOGY, 1990

      Kenneth Gatland, ROBOT EXPLORERS, 1972

      R. Greeley, PLANETARY LANDSCAPES, 1987

      Douglas Hart, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, 1987

      Nicholas L. Johnson, HANDBOOK OF SOVIET LUNAR AND PLANETARY
       EXPLORATION, 1979

      Clayton R. Koppes, JPL AND THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM: A
       HISTORY OF THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, 1982

      Richard S. Lewis, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE
       UNIVERSE, 1983

      Mark Littman, PLANETS BEYOND: DISCOVERING THE OUTER SOLAR
       SYSTEM, 1988

      Eugene F. Mallove and Gregory L. Matloff, THE STARFLIGHT
       HANDBOOK: A PIONEER'S GUIDE TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, 1989

      Frank Miles and Nicholas Booth, RACE TO MARS: THE MARS
       FLIGHT ATLAS, 1988

      Bruce Murray, JOURNEY INTO SPACE, 1989

      Oran W. Nicks, FAR TRAVELERS, 1985 (NASA SP-480)

      James E. Oberg, UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS: EXPLORING THE
       LIMITS OF GLASNOST, 1988

      Carl Sagan, COMET, 1986

      Carl Sagan, THE COSMIC CONNECTION, 1973

      Carl Sagan, PLANETS, 1969 (LIFE Science Library)

      Arthur Smith, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED
       SPACE PROBES, 1988

      Andrew Wilson, (JANE'S) SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, 1987

    Specific Mission References:

      Charles A. Cross and Patrick Moore, THE ATLAS OF MERCURY, 1977
       (The MARINER 10 mission to Venus and Mercury, 1973-1975)

      Joel Davis, FLYBY: THE INTERPLANETARY ODYSSEY OF VOYAGER 2, 1987

      Irl Newlan, FIRST TO VENUS: THE STORY OF MARINER 2, 1963

      Margaret Poynter and Arthur L. Lane, VOYAGER: THE STORY OF A
       SPACE MISSION, 1984

      Carl Sagan, MURMURS OF EARTH, 1978 (Deals with the Earth
       information records placed on VOYAGER 1 and 2 in case the
       probes are found by intelligences in interstellar space,
       as well as the probes and planetary mission objectives
       themselves.)

    Other works and periodicals:

    NASA has published very detailed and technical books on every space
    probe mission it has launched. Good university libraries will carry
    these books, and they are easily found simply by knowing which mission
    you wish to read about. I recommend these works after you first study
    some of the books listed above.

    Some periodicals I recommend for reading on space probes are NATIONAL
    GEOGRAPHIC, which has written articles on the PIONEER probes to Earth's
    Moon Luna and the Jovian planets Jupiter and Saturn, the RANGER,
    SURVEYOR, LUNAR ORBITER, and APOLLO missions to Luna, the MARINER
    missions to Mercury, Venus, and Mars, the VIKING probes to Mars, and the
    VOYAGER missions to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

    More details on American, Soviet, European, and Japanese probe missions
    can be found in SKY AND TELESCOPE, ASTRONOMY, SCIENCE, NATURE, and
    SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazines. TIME, NEWSWEEK, and various major
    newspapers can supply not only general information on certain missions,
    but also show you what else was going on with Earth at the time events
    were unfolding, if that is of interest to you. Space missions are
    affected by numerous political, economic, and climatic factors, as you
    probably know.

    Depending on just how far your interest in space probes will go, you
    might also wish to join The Planetary Society, one of the largest space
    groups in the world dedicated to planetary exploration. Their
    periodical, THE PLANETARY REPORT, details the latest space probe
    missions. Write to The Planetary Society, 65 North Catalina Avenue,
    Pasadena, California 91106 USA.

    Good luck with your studies in this area of space exploration. I
    personally find planetary missions to be one of the more exciting areas
    in this field, and the benefits human society has and will receive from
    it are incredible, with many yet to be realized.

    Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com

NEXT: FAQ #11/15 - Upcoming planetary probes - missions and schedules

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59906
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services

Archive-name: space/launchers
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:11 $

ORBITAL AND PLANETARY LAUNCH SERVICES

The following data comes from _International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems_ by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition.

Notes:
    * Unless otherwise specified, LEO and polar paylaods are for a 100 nm
	orbit.
    * Reliablity data includes launches through Dec, 1990. Reliabity for a
	familiy of vehicles includes launches by types no longer built when
	applicable
    * Prices are in millions of 1990 $US and are subject to change.
    * Only operational vehicle families are included. Individual vehicles
	which have not yet flown are marked by an asterisk (*) If a vehicle
	had first launch after publication of my data, it may still be
	marked with an asterisk.


Vehicle        |     Payload  kg  (lbs)   | Reliability | Price | Launch Site
(nation)       |  LEO	   Polar    GTO   |		|	| (Lat. & Long.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ariane					    35/40  87.5%	  Kourou
(ESA)								 (5.2 N, 52.8 W)
  AR40		4,900	  3,900    1,900    1/1		  $65m
	       (10,800)  (8,580)  (4,190)
  AR42P		6,100	  4,800    2,600    1/1		  $67m
	       (13,400)  (10,600) (5,730)
  AR44P		6,900	  5,500    3,000    0/0 ?	  $70m
	       (15,200)  (12,100) (6,610)
  AR42L		7,400	  5,900    3,200    0/0 ?	  $90m
	       (16,300)  (13,000) (7,050)
  AR44LP	8,300	  6,600    3,700    6/6		  $95m
	       (18,300)  (14,500) (8,160)
  AR44L		9,600	  7,700    4,200    3/4		  $115m
	       (21,100)  (16,900) (9,260)

* AR5	       18,000	   ???	   6,800    0/0		  $105m
	      (39,600)		  (15,000)
	       [300nm]


Atlas					   213/245 86.9%	 Cape Canaveral
(USA)								 (28.5 N, 81.0W)
  Atlas E	 --	   820	     --     15/17	  $45m	 Vandeberg AFB
			  (1,800)				(34.7 N, 120.6W)

  Atlas I	5,580	  4,670    2,250    1/1		  $70m
	       (12,300)  (10,300) (4,950)

  Atlas II	6,395	  5,400    2,680    0/0		  $75m
	       (14,100)  (11,900) (5,900)

  Atlas IIA	6,760	  5,715    2,810    0/0		  $85m
	       (14,900)  (12,600) (6,200)

* Atlas IIAS	8,390	  6,805    3,490    0/0		  $115m
	       (18,500)  (15,000) (7,700)


Delta					   189/201 94.0%	 Cape Canaveral
(USA)								 Vandenberg AFB
  Delta 6925	3,900	  2,950    1,450   14/14	  $45m
	       (8,780)	 (6,490)  (3,190)

  Delta 7925	5,045	  3,830    1,820    1/1		  $50m
	       (11,100)  (8,420)  (2,000)


Energia					    2/2  100%		 Baikonur
(Russia)							 (45.6 N 63.4 E)
  Energia      88,000	 80,000     ???     2/2		  $110m
	      (194,000) (176,000)


H series				    22/22 100%		 Tangeshima
(Japan)								(30.2 N 130.6 E)
* H-2	       10,500	 6,600	   4,000    0/0		  $110m
	      (23,000)	(14,500)  (8,800)


Kosmos					   371/377 98.4%	 Plestek
(Russia)							 (62.8 N 40.1 E)
  Kosmos      1100 - 1350  (2300 - 3000)		 $???	 Kapustin Yar
	      [400 km orbit ??? inclination]			 (48.4 N 45.8 E)


Long March				    23/25 92.0%		 Jiquan SLC
(China)								 (41 N	100 E)
* CZ-1D		 720	  ???	    200     0/0		  $10m	 Xichang SLC
		(1,590)		   (440)			 (28 N	102 E)
								 Taiyuan SLC
  CZ-2C		3,200	  1,750    1,000    12/12	  $20m	 (41 N	100 E)
	       (7,040)	 (3,860)  (2,200)

  CZ-2E		9,200	   ???	   3,370    1/1		  $40m
	       (20,300)		  (7,430)

* CZ-2E/HO     13,600	   ???	   4,500    0/0		  $???
	      (29,900)		  (9,900)

  CZ-3		???	   ???	   1,400    6/7		  $33m
				  (3,100)

* CZ-3A		???	   ???	   2,500    0/0		  $???m
				  (5,500)

  CZ-4		4,000	   ???	   1,100    2/2		  $???m
	       (8,800)		  (2,430)


Pegasus/Taurus				    2/2   100%		Peg:  B-52/L1011
(USA)								Taur: Canaveral
  Pegasus	 455	   365	    125     2/2		  $10m	  or Vandenberg
		(1,000)   (800)    (275)

* Taurus	1,450	  1,180     375     0/0		  $15m
	       (3,200)	 (2,600)   (830)


Proton					   164/187 87.7%	 Baikonour
(Russia)
  Proton       20,000	   ???	   5,500   164/187	  $35-70m
	      (44,100)		  (12,200)


SCOUT					    99/113 87.6%	Vandenberg AFB
(USA)								Wallops FF
  SCOUT G-1	 270	   210	    54	    13/13	  $12m	(37.9 N  75.4 W)
		(600)	  (460)    (120)			San Marco
								(2.9 S	40.3 E)
* Enhanced SCOUT 525	   372	   110	    0/0		  $15m
		(1,160)   (820)   (240)


Shavit					    2/2   100%		Palmachim AFB
(Israel)							( ~31 N)
  Shavit	 ???	   160	   ???	    2/2		  $22m
			  (350)

Space Shuttle				    37/38  97.4%	Kennedy Space
(USA)								Center
  Shuttle/SRB  23,500	   ???	   5,900    37/38	  $248m (28.5 N 81.0 W)
	      (51,800)		  (13,000)		  [FY88]

* Shuttle/ASRM 27,100	   ???	   ???	    0/0
	      (59,800)


SLV					    2/6    33.3%	SHAR Center
(India)       (400km)  (900km polar)				(13.9 N 80.4 E)
  ASLV		150	   ???	    ???     0/2		  $???m
	       (330)

* PSLV		3,000	  1,000     450     0/0		  $???m
	       (6,600)	 (2,200)   (990)

* GSLV		8,000	   ???	   2,500    0/0		  $???m
	       (17,600)		  (5,500)


Titan					    160/172 93.0%	Cape Canaveral
(USA)								Vandenberg
  Titan II	 ???	  1,905     ???     2/2		   $43m
			 (4,200)

  Titan III    14,515	  ???	   5,000    2/3		   $140m
	      (32,000)		  (11,000)

  Titan IV/SRM 17,700	 14,100    6,350    3/3		   $154m-$227m
	      (39,000)	(31,100)  (14,000)

 Titan IV/SRMU 21,640	 18,600    8,620    0/0		   $???m
	      (47,700)	(41,000)  (19,000)


Vostok					    1358/1401 96.9%	Baikonur
(Russia)		 [650km]				Plesetsk
  Vostok	4,730	  1,840     ???     ?/149	   $14m
	      (10,400)	(4,060)

  Soyuz		7,000	   ???	    ???     ?/944	   $15m
	      (15,400)

  Molniya	1500kg (3300 lbs) in	    ?/258	   $???M
		Highly eliptical orbit


Zenit					    12/13  92.3%	Baikonur
(Russia)
  Zenit        13,740	 11,380    4,300    12/13	   $65m
	      (30,300)	(25,090)  (9,480)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59907
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 07/15 - Astronomical Mnemonics

Archive-name: space/mnemonics
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:14 $

ASTRONOMICAL MNEMONICS (This is the last FAQ section posted to sci.astro)

    Gathered from various flurries of mnemonic postings on sci.astro.

    Spectral classification sequence: O B A F G K M R N S

	Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now, Sweetheart. (a classic)

	O'Dell's Big Astronomical Fiasco Gonna Kill Me Right Now Surely
	Obese Balding Astronomy Found Guilty; Killed Many Reluctant
	    Nonscience Students.
	Octopus Brains, A Favorite Gastronomical Kitchen Menu,
	    Requires No Sauce
	Odd Ball Astronomers Find Generally Kooky Mnemonics
	    Really Nifty Stuff
	Oh Big And Ferocious Gorilla, Kill My Roomate Next Saturday
	Oh Boy, A Flash! Godzilla Kills Mothra! Really Not Surprising!
	Oh Boy, An F Grade Kills Me
	On Bad Afternoons Fermented Grapes Keep Mrs. Richard Nixon Smiling
	On, Backward Astronomer, Forget Geocentricity; Kepler's Motions
	    Reveal Nature's Simplicity
	Our Bad Astronomy Faculty Gets Killed Monday
	Oven Baked Ants, Fried Gently, Kept Moist, Retain Natural Succulence
	Overseas Broadcast: A Flash!  Godzilla kills Mothra!
	    (Rodan Named Successor)
	Overweight Boys and Fat Girls Keep Munching
	Only Bored Astronomers Find Gratification Knowing Mnemonics
	Oh Bloody Astronomy!  F Grades Kill Me

    Order of the planets:

	Sun
	Mercury
	Venus
	Earth (Terra)
	Mars
	(Asteroids)
	Jupiter
	Saturn
	Uranus
	Neptune
	Pluto

	My Very Earnest Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas
	Mother Very Thoughtfully Made A Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest
	My Very Erotic Mate Joyfully Satisfies Unusual Needs Passionately
	Men Very Easily Make Jugs Serve Useful Nocturnal Purposes
	Man Very Early Made A Jug Serve Useful Noble Purposes
	My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets
	My Very Eager Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets
	My Very Exhausted Mother hAs Just Swept Up a Planetary Nebula
	Most Voters Earn Money Just Showing Up Near Polls
	My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizza-pies
	Many Viscious Elephants Made John, Suzy and Uncle Need Protection
	Solar Mass Very Easily Makes All Jupiter's Satellites Undergo
	    Numerous Perturbations.

	Mein Vater erklaert mir jeden Sonntag unsere niedlichen Planeten
	    (My Father explains to me every Sunday our nine planets)
	Man verachte einen Menschen in seinem Unglueck nie -- Punkt
	    (Never scorn/despise a person in his misfortune/bad luck/misery
		-- period!)

    Colors of the spectrum: Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet
	ROY G. BIV  (pronounce as a man's name)
	Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain
	Read Out Your Good Book In Verse

    Galilean Satellite of Jupiter: Io Europa Ganymede Callisto
	I Expect God Cries
	I Eat Green Cheese
	I Embarrass Good Christians

	Ich erschrecke all guten Christen
	    (I scare all good Christians)

    Saturnian Satellites
	MET DR THIP
	Miriam's Enchiladas Taste Divine Recently. Tell Her I'm Proud.
	(Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Hyperion,
	    Iapetus, Phoebe)

    Uranian Satellites:
	MAUTO
	Mispronunciations Afflict Uranus Too Often
	My Angel Uriel Takes Opium
	(Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon)

NOTE: the remaining FAQ sections do not appear in sci.astro, as they cover
    material of relevance only to sci.space.

NEXT: FAQ #8/15 - Contacting NASA, ESA, and other space agencies/companies

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59908
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 08/15 - Addresses

Archive-name: space/addresses
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:38:55 $

CONTACTING NASA, ESA, AND OTHER SPACE AGENCIES/COMPANIES

Many space activities center around large Government or International
Bureaucracies.	In the US that means NASA.  If you have basic information
requests: (e.g., general PR info, research grants, data, limited tours, and
ESPECIALLY SUMMER EMPLOYMENT (typically resumes should be ready by Jan.  1),
etc.), consider contacting the nearest NASA Center to answer your questions.

EMail typically will not get you any where, computers are used by
investigators, not PR people. The typical volume of mail per Center is a
multiple of 10,000 letters a day. Seek the Public Information Office at one
of the below, this is their job:

NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is the
civilian space agency of of the United States Federal Government.
It reports directly to the White House and is not a Cabinet
post such as the military Department of Defense.  Its 20K+ employees
are civil servants and hence US citizens.  Another 100K+ contractors
also work for NASA.

NASA CENTERS

    NASA Headquarters (NASA HQ)
    Washington DC 20546
    (202)-358-1600

	Ask them questions about policy, money, and things of political
	nature. Direct specific questions to the appropriate center.

    NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)
    Moffett Field, CA 94035
    (415)-694-5091

	Some aeronautical research, atmosphere reentry, Mars and Venus
	planetary atmospheres. "Lead center" for Helicopter research,
	V/STOL, etc. Runs Pioneer series of space probes.

    NASA Ames Research Center
    Dryden Flight Research Facility [DFRF]
    P. O. Box 273
    Edwards, CA  93523
    (805)-258-8381

	Aircraft, mostly. Tested the shuttle orbiter landing
	characteristics. Developed X-1, D-558, X-3, X-4, X-5, XB-70, and of
	course, the X-15.

    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
    Greenbelt, MD 20771
    [Outside of Washington DC]
    (301)-344-6255

	Earth orbiting unmanned satellites and sounding rockets. Developed
	LANDSAT.

    Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
    California Institute of Technology
    4800 Oak Grove Dr.
    Pasadena, CA 91109
    (818)-354-5011

	The "heavies" in planetary research probes and other unmanned
	projects (they also had a lot to do with IRAS). They run Voyager,
	Magellan, Galileo, and will run Cassini, CRAF, etc. etc.. For
	images, probe navigation, and other info about unmanned exploration,
	this is the place to go.

	JPL is run under contract for NASA by the nearby California
	Institute of Technology, unlike the NASA centers above. This
	distinction is subtle but critical. JPL has different requirements
	for unsolicited research proposals and summer hires. For instance in
	the latter, an SF 171 is useless. Employees are Caltech employees,
	contractors, and for the most part have similar responsibilities.
	They offer an alternative to funding after other NASA Centers.

	A fact sheet and description of JPL is available by anonymous
	FTP in

	    ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/JPLDescription

    NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
    Houston, TX 77058
    (713)-483-5111

	JSC manages Space Shuttle, ground control of manned missions.
	Astronaut training. Manned mission simulators.

    NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center (KSC)
    Titusville, FL 32899
    (407)-867-2468

	Space launch center. You know this one.

    NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
    Hampton, VA 23665
    [Near Newport News, VA]
    (804)-865-2935

	Original NASA site. Specializes in theoretical and experimental
	flight dynamics. Viking. Long Duration Exposure Facility.

    NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC)
    21000 Brookpark Rd.
    Cleveland, OH 44135
    (216)-433-4000

	Aircraft/Rocket propulsion. Space power generation. Materials
	research.

    NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
    Huntsville, AL 35812
    (205)-453-0034

	Development, production, delivery of Solid Rocket Boosters, External
	Tank, Orbiter main engines. Propulsion and launchers.

    Michoud Assembly Facility
    Orleans Parish
    New Orleans, LA 70129
    (504)-255-2601

	Shuttle external tanks are produced here; formerly Michoud produced
	first stages for the Saturn V.

    Stennis Space Center
    Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529
    (601)-688-3341

	Space Shuttle main engines are tested here, as were Saturn V first
	and second stages. The center also does remote-sensing and
	technology-transfer research.

    Wallops Flight Center
    Wallops Island, VA 23337
    (804)824-3411
	    Aeronautical research, sounding rockets, Scout launcher.

    Manager, Technology Utilization Office
    NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility
    Post Office Box 8757
    Baltimore, Maryland 21240

    Specific requests for software must go thru COSMIC at the Univ. of
    Georgia, NASA's contracted software redistribution service. You can
    reach them at cosmic@uga.bitnet.

    NOTE: Foreign nationals requesting information must go through their
    Embassies in Washington DC. These are facilities of the US Government
    and are regarded with some degree of economic sensitivity. Centers
    cannot directly return information without high Center approval. Allow
    at least 1 month for clearance. This includes COSMIC.

The US Air Force Space Command can be contacted thru the Pentagon along with
    other Department of Defense offices. They have unacknowledged offices in
    Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Colorado Springs, and other locations. They have
    a budget which rivals NASA in size.

ARIANESPACE HEADQUARTERS
    Boulevard de l'Europe
    B.P. 177
    91006 Evry Cedex
    France

ARIANESPACE, INC.
    1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 875
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202)-728-9075

EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA)
    955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20024
    (202)-488-4158

NATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NASDA)
    4-1 Hamamatsu-Cho, 2 Chome
    Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105, JAPAN

SOYUZKARTA
    45 Vologradsij Pr.
    Moscow 109125
    USSR

SPACE CAMP
    Alabama Space and Rocket Center	U.S. SPACE CAMP
    1 Tranquility Base			6225 Vectorspace Blvd
    Huntsville, AL 35805		Titusville FL  32780
    (205)-837-3400			(407)267-3184

    Registration and mailing list are handled through Huntsville -- both
    camps are described in the same brochure.

    Programs offered at Space Camp are:

	Space Camp - one week, youngsters completing grades 4-6
	Space Academy I - one week, grades 7-9
	Aviation Challenge - one week high school program, grades 9-11
	Space Academy II - 8 days, college accredited, grades 10-12
	Adult Program - 3 days (editorial comment: it's great!)
	Teachers Program - 5 days

SPACE COMMERCE CORPORATION (U.S. agent for Soviet launch services)
    504 Pluto Drive		    69th flr, Texas Commerce Tower
    Colorado Springs, CO 80906	    Houston, TX 77002
    (719)-578-5490		    (713)-227-9000

SPACEHAB
    600 Maryland Avenue, SW
    Suite 201 West
    Washington, DC 20004
    (202)-488-3483

SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION
    1857 Preston White Drive,
    Reston, VA 22091
    (FAX) (703)-648-1813    (703)-620-2200


OTHER COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESSES

    Vincent Cate maintains a list with addresses and some info for a variety
of companies in space-related businesses. This is mailed out on the
space-investors list he runs (see the "Network Resources" FAQ) and is also
available by anonymous ftp from furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.209.111) in
/usr/vac/ftp/space-companies.


NEXT: FAQ #9/15 - Schedules for space missions, and how to see them

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59909
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 11/15 - Upcoming Planetary Probes

Archive-name: space/new_probes
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:17 $

UPCOMING PLANETARY PROBES - MISSIONS AND SCHEDULES

    Information on upcoming or currently active missions not mentioned below
    would be welcome. Sources: NASA fact sheets, Cassini Mission Design
    team, ISAS/NASDA launch schedules, press kits.


    ASUKA (ASTRO-D) - ISAS (Japan) X-ray astronomy satellite, launched into
    Earth orbit on 2/20/93. Equipped with large-area wide-wavelength (1-20
    Angstrom) X-ray telescope, X-ray CCD cameras, and imaging gas
    scintillation proportional counters.


    CASSINI - Saturn orbiter and Titan atmosphere probe. Cassini is a joint
    NASA/ESA project designed to accomplish an exploration of the Saturnian
    system with its Cassini Saturn Orbiter and Huygens Titan Probe. Cassini
    is scheduled for launch aboard a Titan IV/Centaur in October of 1997.
    After gravity assists of Venus, Earth and Jupiter in a VVEJGA
    trajectory, the spacecraft will arrive at Saturn in June of 2004. Upon
    arrival, the Cassini spacecraft performs several maneuvers to achieve an
    orbit around Saturn. Near the end of this initial orbit, the Huygens
    Probe separates from the Orbiter and descends through the atmosphere of
    Titan. The Orbiter relays the Probe data to Earth for about 3 hours
    while the Probe enters and traverses the cloudy atmosphere to the
    surface. After the completion of the Probe mission, the Orbiter
    continues touring the Saturnian system for three and a half years. Titan
    synchronous orbit trajectories will allow about 35 flybys of Titan and
    targeted flybys of Iapetus, Dione and Enceladus. The objectives of the
    mission are threefold: conduct detailed studies of Saturn's atmosphere,
    rings and magnetosphere; conduct close-up studies of Saturn's
    satellites, and characterize Titan's atmosphere and surface.

    One of the most intriguing aspects of Titan is the possibility that its
    surface may be covered in part with lakes of liquid hydrocarbons that
    result from photochemical processes in its upper atmosphere. These
    hydrocarbons condense to form a global smog layer and eventually rain
    down onto the surface. The Cassini orbiter will use onboard radar to
    peer through Titan's clouds and determine if there is liquid on the
    surface. Experiments aboard both the orbiter and the entry probe will
    investigate the chemical processes that produce this unique atmosphere.

    The Cassini mission is named for Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712), the
    first director of the Paris Observatory, who discovered several of
    Saturn's satellites and the major division in its rings. The Titan
    atmospheric entry probe is named for the Dutch physicist Christiaan
    Huygens (1629-1695), who discovered Titan and first described the true
    nature of Saturn's rings.

	 Key Scheduled Dates for the Cassini Mission (VVEJGA Trajectory)
	 -------------------------------------------------------------
	   10/06/97 - Titan IV/Centaur Launch
	   04/21/98 - Venus 1 Gravity Assist
	   06/20/99 - Venus 2 Gravity Assist
	   08/16/99 - Earth Gravity Assist
	   12/30/00 - Jupiter Gravity Assist
	   06/25/04 - Saturn Arrival
	   01/09/05 - Titan Probe Release
	   01/30/05 - Titan Probe Entry
	   06/25/08 - End of Primary Mission
	    (Schedule last updated 7/22/92)


    GALILEO - Jupiter orbiter and atmosphere probe, in transit. Has returned
    the first resolved images of an asteroid, Gaspra, while in transit to
    Jupiter. Efforts to unfurl the stuck High-Gain Antenna (HGA) have
    essentially been abandoned. JPL has developed a backup plan using data
    compression (JPEG-like for images, lossless compression for data from
    the other instruments) which should allow the mission to achieve
    approximately 70% of its original objectives.

	   Galileo Schedule
	   ----------------
	   10/18/89 - Launch from Space Shuttle
	   02/09/90 - Venus Flyby
	   10/**/90 - Venus Data Playback
	   12/08/90 - 1st Earth Flyby
	   05/01/91 - High Gain Antenna Unfurled
	   07/91 - 06/92 - 1st Asteroid Belt Passage
	   10/29/91 - Asteroid Gaspra Flyby
	   12/08/92 - 2nd Earth Flyby
	   05/93 - 11/93 - 2nd Asteroid Belt Passage
	   08/28/93 - Asteroid Ida Flyby
	   07/02/95 - Probe Separation
	   07/09/95 - Orbiter Deflection Maneuver
	   12/95 - 10/97 - Orbital Tour of Jovian Moons
	   12/07/95 - Jupiter/Io Encounter
	   07/18/96 - Ganymede
	   09/28/96 - Ganymede
	   12/12/96 - Callisto
	   01/23/97 - Europa
	   02/28/97 - Ganymede
	   04/22/97 - Europa
	   05/31/97 - Europa
	   10/05/97 - Jupiter Magnetotail Exploration


    HITEN - Japanese (ISAS) lunar probe launched 1/24/90. Has made
    multiple lunar flybys. Released Hagoromo, a smaller satellite,
    into lunar orbit. This mission made Japan the third nation to
    orbit a satellite around the Moon.


    MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
    surface at high resolution. Currently (4/93) collecting a global gravity
    map.


    MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
    Launched 9/25/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (4/93) in
    transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
    one martian year (687 days).


    TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched
    8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
    TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
    observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
    increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
    will increase understanding of how heat is transported in the ocean.


    ULYSSES- European Space Agency probe to study the Sun from an orbit over
    its poles. Launched in late 1990, it carries particles-and-fields
    experiments (such as magnetometer, ion and electron collectors for
    various energy ranges, plasma wave radio receivers, etc.) but no camera.

    Since no human-built rocket is hefty enough to send Ulysses far out of
    the ecliptic plane, it went to Jupiter instead, and stole energy from
    that planet by sliding over Jupiter's north pole in a gravity-assist
    manuver in February 1992. This bent its path into a solar orbit tilted
    about 85 degrees to the ecliptic. It will pass over the Sun's south pole
    in the summer of 1993. Its aphelion is 5.2 AU, and, surprisingly, its
    perihelion is about 1.5 AU-- that's right, a solar-studies spacecraft
    that's always further from the Sun than the Earth is!

    While in Jupiter's neigborhood, Ulysses studied the magnetic and
    radiation environment. For a short summary of these results, see
    *Science*, V. 257, p. 1487-1489 (11 September 1992). For gory technical
    detail, see the many articles in the same issue.


    OTHER SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS (note: this is based on a posting by Ron
    Baalke in 11/89, with ISAS/NASDA information contributed by Yoshiro
    Yamada (yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp). I'm attempting to track changes based
    on updated shuttle manifests; corrections and updates are welcome.

    1993 Missions
	o ALEXIS [spring, Pegasus]
	    ALEXIS (Array of Low-Energy X-ray Imaging Sensors) is to perform
	    a wide-field sky survey in the "soft" (low-energy) X-ray
	    spectrum. It will scan the entire sky every six months to search
	    for variations in soft-X-ray emission from sources such as white
	    dwarfs, cataclysmic variable stars and flare stars. It will also
	    search nearby space for such exotic objects as isolated neutron
	    stars and gamma-ray bursters. ALEXIS is a project of Los Alamos
	    National Laboratory and is primarily a technology development
	    mission that uses astrophysical sources to demonstrate the
	    technology. Contact project investigator Jeffrey J Bloch
	    (jjb@beta.lanl.gov) for more information.

	o Wind [Aug, Delta II rocket]
	    Satellite to measure solar wind input to magnetosphere.

	o Space Radar Lab [Sep, STS-60 SRL-01]
	    Gather radar images of Earth's surface.

	o Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer [Dec, Pegasus rocket]
	    Study of Stratospheric ozone.

	o SFU (Space Flyer Unit) [ISAS]
	    Conducting space experiments and observations and this can be
	    recovered after it conducts the various scientific and
	    engineering experiments. SFU is to be launched by ISAS and
	    retrieved by the U.S. Space Shuttle on STS-68 in 1994.

    1994
	o Polar Auroral Plasma Physics [May, Delta II rocket]
	    June, measure solar wind and ions and gases surrounding the
	    Earth.

	o IML-2 (STS) [NASDA, Jul 1994 IML-02]
	    International Microgravity Laboratory.

	o ADEOS [NASDA]
	    Advanced Earth Observing Satellite.

	o MUSES-B (Mu Space Engineering Satellite-B) [ISAS]
	    Conducting research on the precise mechanism of space structure
	    and in-space astronomical observations of electromagnetic waves.

    1995
	LUNAR-A [ISAS]
	    Elucidating the crust structure and thermal construction of the
	    moon's interior.


    Proposed Missions:
	o Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility (AXAF)
	    Possible launch from shuttle in 1995, AXAF is a space
	    observatory with a high resolution telescope. It would orbit for
	    15 years and study the mysteries and fate of the universe.

	o Earth Observing System (EOS)
	    Possible launch in 1997, 1 of 6 US orbiting space platforms to
	    provide long-term data (15 years) of Earth systems science
	    including planetary evolution.

	o Mercury Observer
	    Possible 1997 launch.

	o Lunar Observer
	    Possible 1997 launch, would be sent into a long-term lunar
	    orbit. The Observer, from 60 miles above the moon's poles, would
	    survey characteristics to provide a global context for the
	    results from the Apollo program.

	o Space Infrared Telescope Facility
	    Possible launch by shuttle in 1999, this is the 4th element of
	    the Great Observatories program. A free-flying observatory with
	    a lifetime of 5 to 10 years, it would observe new comets and
	    other primitive bodies in the outer solar system, study cosmic
	    birth formation of galaxies, stars and planets and distant
	    infrared-emitting galaxies

	o Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR)
	    Robotics rover would return samples of Mars' atmosphere and
	    surface to Earch for analysis. Possible launch dates: 1996 for
	    imaging orbiter, 2001 for rover.

	o Fire and Ice
	    Possible launch in 2001, will use a gravity assist flyby of
	    Earth in 2003, and use a final gravity assist from Jupiter in
	    2005, where the probe will split into its Fire and Ice
	    components: The Fire probe will journey into the Sun, taking
	    measurements of our star's upper atmosphere until it is
	    vaporized by the intense heat. The Ice probe will head out
	    towards Pluto, reaching the tiny world for study by 2016.


NEXT: FAQ #12/15 - Controversial questions

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 59913
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 04/15 - Calculations

Archive-name: space/math
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:12 $

PERFORMING CALCULATIONS AND INTERPRETING DATA FORMATS

    COMPUTING SPACECRAFT ORBITS AND TRAJECTORIES

    References that have been frequently recommended on the net are:

    "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" Roger Bate, Donald Mueller, Jerry White
    1971, Dover Press, 455pp $8.95 (US) (paperback). ISBN 0-486-60061-0

    NASA Spaceflight handbooks (dating from the 1960s)
	SP-33 Orbital Flight Handbook (3 parts)
	SP-34 Lunar Flight Handbook   (3 parts)
	SP-35 Planetary Flight Handbook (9 parts)

	These might be found in university aeronautics libraries or ordered
	through the US Govt. Printing Office (GPO), although more
	information would probably be needed to order them.

    M. A. Minovitch, _The Determination and Characteristics of Ballistic
    Interplanetary Trajectories Under the Influence of Multiple Planetary
    Attractions_, Technical Report 32-464, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
    Pasadena, Calif., Oct, 1963.

	The title says all. Starts of with the basics and works its way up.
	Very good. It has a companion article:

    M. Minovitch, _Utilizing Large Planetary Perubations for the Design of
    Deep-Space Solar-Probe and Out of Ecliptic Trajectories_, Technical
    Report 32-849, JPL, Pasadena, Calif., 1965.

	You need to read the first one first to realy understand this one.
	It does include a _short_ summary if you can only find the second.

	Contact JPL for availability of these reports.

    "Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics", Peter C. Hughes 1986, John Wiley and
	Sons.

    "Celestial Mechanics: a computational guide for the practitioner",
    Lawrence G. Taff, (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1985).

	Starts with the basics (2-body problem, coordinates) and works up to
	orbit determinations, perturbations, and differential corrections.
	Taff also briefly discusses stellar dynamics including a short
	discussion of n-body problems.


    COMPUTING PLANETARY POSITIONS

    More net references:

    Van Flandern & Pullinen, _Low-Precision Formulae for Planetary
    Positions_, Astrophysical J. Supp Series, 41:391-411, 1979. Look in an
    astronomy or physics library for this; also said to be available from
    Willmann-Bell.

	Gives series to compute positions accurate to 1 arc minute for a
	period + or - 300 years from now. Pluto is included but stated to
	have an accuracy of only about 15 arc minutes.

    _Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac_ (MICA), produced by the US
    Naval Observatory. Valid for years 1990-1999. $55 ($80 outside US).
    Available for IBM (order #PB93-500163HDV) or Macintosh (order
    #PB93-500155HDV). From the NTIS sales desk, (703)-487-4650. I believe
    this is intended to replace the USNO's Interactive Computer Ephemeris.

    _Interactive Computer Ephemeris_ (from the US Naval Observatory)
    distributed on IBM-PC floppy disks, $35 (Willmann-Bell). Covers dates
    1800-2049.

    "Planetary Programs and Tables from -4000 to +2800", Bretagnon & Simon
    1986, Willmann-Bell.

	Floppy disks available separately.

    "Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics" (2nd ed), J.M.A. Danby 1988,
    Willmann-Bell.

	A good fundamental text. Includes BASIC programs; a companion set of
	floppy disks is available separately.

    "Astronomical Formulae for Calculators" (4th ed.), J. Meeus 1988,
    Willmann-Bell.

    "Astronomical Algorithms", J. Meeus 1991, Willmann-Bell.

	If you actively use one of the editions of "Astronomical Formulae
	for Calculators", you will want to replace it with "Astronomical
	Algorithms". This new book is more oriented towards computers than
	calculators and contains formulae for planetary motion based on
	modern work by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the U.S. Naval
	Observatory, and the Bureau des Longitudes. The previous books were
	all based on formulae mostly developed in the last century.

	Algorithms available separately on diskette.

    "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator" (3rd ed.), P. Duffett-Smith
    1988, Cambridge University Press.

    "Orbits for Amateurs with a Microcomputer", D. Tattersfield 1984,
    Stanley Thornes, Ltd.

	Includes example programs in BASIC.

    "Orbits for Amateurs II", D. Tattersfield 1987, John Wiley & Sons.

    "Astronomy / Scientific Software" - catalog of shareware, public domain,
    and commercial software for IBM and other PCs. Astronomy software
    includes planetarium simulations, ephemeris generators, astronomical
    databases, solar system simulations, satellite tracking programs,
    celestial mechanics simulators, and more.

	Andromeda Software, Inc.
	P.O. Box 605
	Amherst, NY 14226-0605


    COMPUTING CRATER DIAMETERS FROM EARTH-IMPACTING ASTEROIDS

    Astrogeologist Gene Shoemaker proposes the following formula, based on
    studies of cratering caused by nuclear tests.

		     (1/3.4)
    D = S  S  c  K  W	    : crater diameter in km
	 g  p  f  n

	       (1/6)
    S = (g /g )		    : gravity correction factor for bodies other than
     g	  e  t		      Earth, where g = 9.8 m/s^2 and g	is the surface
					    e		      t
			      gravity of the target body. This scaling is
			      cited for lunar craters and may hold true for
			      other bodies.

		(1/3.4)
    S = (p / p )	    : correction factor for target density p  ,
     p	  a   t							    t
			      p  = 1.8 g/cm^3 for alluvium at the Jangle U
			       a
			      crater site, p = 2.6 g/cm^3 for average
			      rock on the continental shields.

    C			    : crater collapse factor, 1 for craters <= 3 km
			      in diameter, 1.3 for larger craters (on Earth).

							    (1/3.4)
    K			    : .074 km / (kT TNT equivalent)
     n			      empirically determined from the Jangle U
			      nuclear test crater.

	      3		   2		       19
    W = pi * d	* delta * V  / (12 * 4.185 * 10  )
			    : projectile kinetic energy in kT TNT equivalent
			      given diameter d, velocity v, and projectile
			      density delta in CGS units. delta of around 3
			      g/cm^3 is fairly good for an asteroid.

    An RMS velocity of V = 20 km/sec may be used for Earth-crossing
    asteroids.

    Under these assumptions, the body which created the Barringer Meteor
    Crater in Arizona (1.13 km diameter) would have been about 40 meters in
    diameter.

    More generally, one can use (after Gehrels, 1985):

    Asteroid	    Number of objects  Impact probability  Impact energy
    diameter (km)		       (impacts/year)	   (* 5*10^20 ergs)

     10			    10		     10^-8		10^9
      1			 1 000		     10^-6		10^6
      0.1	       100 000		     10^-4		10^3

    assuming simple scaling laws. Note that 5*10^20 ergs = 13 000 tons TNT
    equivalent, or the energy released by the Hiroshima A-bomb.

    References:

    Gehrels, T. 1985 Asteroids and comets. _Physics Today_ 38, 32-41. [an
	excellent general overview of the subject for the layman]

    Shoemaker, E.M. 1983 Asteroid and comet bombardment of the earth. _Ann.
	Rev. Earth Planet. Sci._ 11, 461-494. [very long and fairly
	technical but a comprehensive examination of the
	 subject]

    Shoemaker, E.M., J.G. Williams, E.F. Helin & R.F. Wolfe 1979
	Earth-crossing asteroids: Orbital classes, collision rates with
	Earth, and origin. In _Asteroids_, T. Gehrels, ed., pp. 253-282,
	University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Cunningham, C.J. 1988 _Introduction to Asteroids: The Next Frontier_
	(Richmond: Willman-Bell, Inc.) [covers all aspects of asteroid
	studies and is an excellent introduction to the subject for people
	of all experience levels. It also has a very extensive reference
	list covering essentially all of the reference material in the
	field.]


    MAP PROJECTIONS AND SPHERICAL TRIGNOMETRY

    Two easy-to-find sources of map projections are the "Encyclopaedia
    Brittanica", (particularly the older volumes) and a tutorial appearing
    in _Graphics Gems_ (Academic Press, 1990). The latter was written with
    simplicity of exposition and suitability of digital computation in mind
    (spherical trig formulae also appear, as do digitally-plotted examples).

    More than you ever cared to know about map projections is in John
    Snyder's USGS publication "Map Projections--A Working Manual", USGS
    Professional Paper 1395. This contains detailed descriptions of 32
    projections, with history, features, projection formulas (for both
    spherical earth and ellipsoidal earth), and numerical test cases. It's a
    neat book, all 382 pages worth. This one's $20.

    You might also want the companion volume, by Snyder and Philip Voxland,
    "An Album of Map Projections", USGS Professional Paper 1453. This
    contains less detail on about 130 projections and variants. Formulas are
    in the back, example plots in the front. $14, 250 pages.

    You can order these 2 ways. The cheap, slow way is direct from USGS:
    Earth Science Information Center, US Geological Survey, 507 National
    Center, Reston, VA 22092. (800)-USA-MAPS. They can quote you a price and
    tell you where to send your money. Expect a 6-8 week turnaround time.

    A much faster way (about 1 week) is through Timely Discount Topos,
    (303)-469-5022, 9769 W. 119th Drive, Suite 9, Broomfield, CO 80021. Call
    them and tell them what you want. They'll quote a price, you send a
    check, and then they go to USGS Customer Service Counter and pick it up
    for you. Add about a $3-4 service charge, plus shipping.

    A (perhaps more accessible) mapping article is:

	R. Miller and F. Reddy, "Mapping the World in Pascal",
	Byte V12 #14, December 1987

	Contains Turbo Pascal procedures for five common map projections. A
	demo program, CARTOG.PAS, and a small (6,000 point) coastline data
	is available on CompuServe, GEnie, and many BBSs.

    Some references for spherical trignometry are:

	_Spherical Astronomy_, W.M. Smart, Cambridge U. Press, 1931.

	_A Compendium of Spherical Astronomy_, S. Newcomb, Dover, 1960.

	_Spherical Astronomy_, R.M. Green, Cambridge U. Press., 1985 (update
	of Smart).

	_Spherical Astronomy_, E Woolard and G.Clemence, Academic
	Press, 1966.


    PERFORMING N-BODY SIMULATIONS EFFICIENTLY

	"Computer Simulation Using Particles"
	R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood
	(Adam Hilger; Bristol and Philadelphia; 1988)

	"The rapid evaluation of potential fields in particle systems",
	L. Greengard
	MIT Press, 1988.

	    A breakthrough O(N) simulation method. Has been parallelized.

	L. Greengard and V. Rokhlin, "A fast algorithm for particle
	simulations," Journal of Computational Physics, 73:325-348, 1987.

	"An O(N) Algorithm for Three-dimensional N-body Simulations", MSEE
	thesis, Feng Zhao, MIT AILab Technical Report 995, 1987

	"Galactic Dynamics"
	J. Binney & S. Tremaine
	(Princeton U. Press; Princeton; 1987)

	    Includes an O(N^2) FORTRAN code written by Aarseth, a pioneer in
	    the field.

	Hierarchical (N log N) tree methods are described in these papers:

	A. W. Appel, "An Efficient Program for Many-body Simulation", SIAM
	Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, Vol. 6, p. 85,
	1985.

	Barnes & Hut, "A Hierarchical O(N log N) Force-Calculation
	Algorithm", Nature, V324 # 6096, 4-10 Dec 1986.

	L. Hernquist, "Hierarchical N-body Methods", Computer Physics
	Communications, Vol. 48, p. 107, 1988.


    INTERPRETING THE FITS IMAGE FORMAT

    If you just need to examine FITS images, use the ppm package (see the
    comp.graphics FAQ) to convert them to your preferred format. For more
    information on the format and other software to read and write it, see
    the sci.astro.fits FAQ.


    SKY (UNIX EPHEMERIS PROGRAM)

    The 6th Edition of the Unix operating system came with several software
    systems not distributed because of older media capacity limitations.
    Included were an ephmeris, a satellite track, and speech synthesis
    software. The ephmeris, sky(6), is available within AT&T and to sites
    possessing a Unix source code license. The program is regarded as Unix
    source code. Sky is <0.5MB. Send proof of source code license to

	E. Miya
	MS 258-5
	NASA Ames Research Center
	Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
	eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov


    THREE-DIMENSIONAL STAR/GALAXY COORDINATES

    To generate 3D coordinates of astronomical objects, first obtain an
    astronomical database which specifies right ascension, declination, and
    parallax for the objects. Convert parallax into distance using the
    formula in part 6 of the FAQ, convert RA and declination to coordinates
    on a unit sphere (see some of the references on planetary positions and
    spherical trignometry earlier in this section for details on this), and
    scale this by the distance.

    Two databases useful for this purpose are the Yale Bright Star catalog
    (sources listed in FAQ section 3) or "The Catalogue of Stars within 25
    parsecs of the Sun" (in pub/SPACE/FAQ/stars.data and stars.doc on
    ames.arc.nasa.gov).


NEXT: FAQ #5/15 - References on specific areas

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60103
From: bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu (Mark Bradford)
Subject: Astro/Space Frequently Seen Acronyms

Archive-name: space/acronyms
Edition: 8

Acronym List for sci.astro, sci.space, and sci.space.shuttle:
Edition 8, 1992 Dec 7
Last posted: 1992 Aug 27

This list is offered as a reference for translating commonly appearing
acronyms in the space-related newsgroups.  If I forgot or botched your
favorite acronym, please let me know!  Also, if there's an acronym *not*
on this list that confuses you, drop me a line, and if I can figure
it out, I'll add it to the list.

Note that this is intended to be a reference for *frequently seen*
acronyms, and is most emphatically *not* encyclopedic.  If I incorporated
every acronym I ever saw, I'd soon run out of disk space!  :-)

The list will be posted at regular intervals, every 30 days.  All
comments regarding it are welcome; I'm reachable as bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu.

Note that this just tells what the acronyms stand for -- you're on your
own for figuring out what they *mean*!  Note also that the total number of
acronyms in use far exceeds what I can list; special-purpose acronyms that
are essentially always explained as they're introduced are omitted.
Further, some acronyms stand for more than one thing; as of Edition 3 of
the list, these acronyms appear on multiple lines, unless they're simply
different ways of referring to the same thing.

Thanks to everybody who's sent suggestions since the first version of
the list, and especially to Garrett A. Wollman (wollman@griffin.uvm.edu),
who is maintaining an independent list, somewhat more verbose in
character than mine, and to Daniel Fischer (dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de),
who is maintaining a truly HUGE list (535 at last count) of acronyms and
terms, mostly in German (which I read, fortunately).

Special thanks this time to Ken Hollis at NASA, who sent me a copy of NASA
Reference Publication 1059 Revised: _Space Transportation System and
Associated Payloads: Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations_, a truly
mammoth tome -- almost 300 pages of TLAs.

Special Bonus!  At the end of this posting, you will find a perl program
written by none other than Larry Wall, whose purpose is to scramble the
acronym list in an entertaining fashion.  Thanks, Larry!

A&A: Astronomy and Astrophysics
AAO: Anglo-Australian Observatory
AAS: American Astronomical Society
AAS: American Astronautical Society
AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers
ACE: Advanced Composition Explorer
ACRV: Assured Crew Return Vehicle (or) Astronaut Crew Rescue Vehicle
ADFRF: Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (was DFRF) (NASA)
AGN: Active Galactic Nucleus
AGU: American Geophysical Union
AIAA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIPS: Astronomical Image Processing System
AJ: Astronomical Journal
ALEXIS: Array of Low Energy X-ray Imaging Sensors
ALPO: Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers
ALS: Advanced Launch System
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
AOA: Abort Once Around (Shuttle abort plan)
AOCS: Attitude and Orbit Control System
Ap.J: Astrophysical Journal
APM: Attached Pressurized Module (a.k.a. Columbus)
APU: Auxiliary Power Unit
ARC: Ames Research Center (NASA)
ARTEMIS: Advanced Relay TEchnology MISsion
ASA: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
ASI: Agenzia Spaziale Italiano
ASRM: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor
ATDRS: Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
ATLAS: Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science
ATM: Amateur Telescope Maker
ATO: Abort To Orbit (Shuttle abort plan)
AU: Astronomical Unit
AURA: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy
AW&ST: Aviation Week and Space Technology (a.k.a. AvLeak)
AXAF: Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility
BATSE: Burst And Transient Source Experiment (on CGRO)
BBXRT: Broad-Band X-Ray Telescope (ASTRO package)
BEM: Bug-Eyed Monster
BH: Black Hole
BIMA: Berkeley Illinois Maryland Array
BNSC: British National Space Centre
BTW: By The Way
C&T: Communications & Tracking
CCAFS: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
CCD: Charge-Coupled Device
CCDS: Centers for the Commercial Development of Space
CD-ROM: Compact Disk Read-Only Memory
CFA: Center For Astrophysics
CFC: ChloroFluoroCarbon
CFF: Columbus Free Flyer
CFHT: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
CGRO: (Arthur Holley) Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (was GRO)
CHARA: Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy
CIRRIS: Cryogenic InfraRed Radiance Instrument for Shuttle
CIT: Circumstellar Imaging Telescope
CM: Command Module (Apollo spacecraft)
CMCC: Central Mission Control Centre (ESA)
CNES: Centre National d'Etude Spatiales
CNO: Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen
CNSR: Comet Nucleus Sample Return
COBE: COsmic Background Explorer
COMPTEL: COMPton TELescope (on CGRO)
COSTAR: Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement
CRAF: Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby
CRRES: Combined Release / Radiation Effects Satellite
CSM: Command and Service Module (Apollo spacecraft)
CSTC: Consolidated Satellite Test Center (USAF)
CTIO: Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory
DCX: Delta Clipper eXperimental
DDCU: DC-to-DC Converter Unit
DFRF: Dryden Flight Research Facility (now ADFRF)
DMSP: Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
DOD: Department Of Defense (sometimes DoD)
DOE: Department Of Energy
DOT: Department Of Transportation
DSCS: Defense Satellite Communications System
DSN: Deep Space Network
DSP: Defense Support Program (USAF/NRO)
EAFB: Edwards Air Force Base
ECS: Environmental Control System
EDO: Extended Duration Orbiter
EGRET: Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (on CGRO)
EJASA: Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
ELV: Expendable Launch Vehicle
EMU: Extravehicular Mobility Unit
EOS: Earth Observing System
ERS: Earth Resources Satellite (as in ERS-1)
ESA: European Space Agency
ESO: European Southern Observatory
ET: (Shuttle) External Tank
ETLA: Extended Three Letter Acronym
ETR: Eastern Test Range
EUV: Extreme UltraViolet
EUVE: Extreme UltraViolet Explorer
EVA: ExtraVehicular Activity
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
FAST: Fast Auroral SnapshoT explorer
FFT: Fast Fourier Transform
FGS: Fine Guidance Sensors (on HST)
FHST: Fixed Head Star Trackers (on HST)
FIR: Far InfraRed
FITS: Flexible Image Transport System
FOC: Faint Object Camera (on HST)
FOS: Faint Object Spectrograph (on HST)
FRR: Flight-Readiness Review
FTP: File Transfer Protocol
FTS: Flight Telerobotic Servicer
FUSE: Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer
FWHM: Full Width at Half Maximum
FYI: For Your Information
GAS: Get-Away Special
GBT: Green Bank Telescope
GCVS: General Catalog of Variable Stars
GEM: Giotto Extended Mission
GEO: Geosynchronous Earth Orbit
GDS: Great Dark Spot
GHRS: Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (on HST)
GIF: Graphics Interchange Format
GLOMR: Global Low-Orbiting Message Relay
GMC: Giant Molecular Cloud
GMRT: Giant Meter-wave Radio Telescope
GMT: Greenwich Mean Time (also called UT)
GOES: Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite
GOX: Gaseous OXygen
GPC: General Purpose Computer
GPS: Global Positioning System
GRO: Gamma Ray Observatory (now CGRO)
GRS: Gamma Ray Spectrometer (on Mars Observer)
GRS: Great Red Spot
GSC: Guide Star Catalog (for HST)
GSFC: Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA)
GTO: Geostationary Transfer Orbit
HAO: High Altitude Observatory
HD: Henry Draper catalog entry
HEAO: High Energy Astronomical Observatory
HeRA: Hermes Robotic Arm
HF: High Frequency
HGA: High Gain Antenna
HLC: Heavy Lift Capability
HLV: Heavy Lift Vehicle
HMC: Halley Multicolor Camera (on Giotto)
HR: Hertzsprung-Russell (diagram)
HRI: High Resolution Imager (on ROSAT)
HSP: High Speed Photometer (on HST)
HST: Hubble Space Telescope
HUT: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (ASTRO package)
HV: High Voltage
IAPPP: International Amateur/Professional Photoelectric Photometry
IAU: International Astronomical Union
IAUC: IAU Circular
ICE: International Cometary Explorer
IDA: International Dark-sky Association
IDL: Interactive Data Language
IGM: InterGalactic Medium
IGY: International Geophysical Year
IMHO: In My Humble Opinion
IOTA: Infrared-Optical Telescope Array
IOTA: International Occultation Timing Association
IPS: Inertial Pointing System
IR: InfraRed
IRAF: Image Reduction and Analysis Facility
IRAS: InfraRed Astronomical Satellite
ISAS: Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (Japan)
ISM: InterStellar Medium
ISO: Infrared Space Observatory
ISO: International Standards Organization
ISPM: International Solar Polar Mission (now Ulysses)
ISY: International Space Year
IUE: International Ultraviolet Explorer
IUS: Inertial Upper Stage
JEM: Japanese Experiment Module (for SSF)
JGR: Journal of Geophysical Research
JILA: Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JSC: Johnson Space Center (NASA)
KAO: Kuiper Airborne Observatory
KPNO: Kitt Peak National Observatory
KSC: Kennedy Space Center (NASA)
KTB: Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary (from German)
LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory
LaRC: Langley Research Center (NASA)
LDEF: Long Duration Exposure Facility
LEM: Lunar Excursion Module (a.k.a. LM) (Apollo spacecraft)
LEO: Low Earth Orbit
LeRC: Lewis Research Center (NASA)
LEST: Large Earth-based Solar Telescope
LFSA: List of Frequently Seen Acronyms (!)
LGA: Low Gain Antenna
LGM: Little Green Men
LH: Liquid Hydrogen (also LH2 or LHX)
LLNL: Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory
LM: Lunar Module (a.k.a. LEM) (Apollo spacecraft)
LMC: Large Magellanic Cloud
LN2: Liquid N2 (Nitrogen)
LOX: Liquid OXygen
LRB: Liquid Rocket Booster
LSR: Local Standard of Rest
LTP: Lunar Transient Phenomenon
MB: Manned Base
MCC: Mission Control Center
MECO: Main Engine CutOff
MMH: MonoMethyl Hydrazine
MMT: Multiple Mirror Telescope
MMU: Manned Maneuvering Unit
MNRAS: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
MOC: Mars Observer Camera (on Mars Observer)
MOL: Manned Orbiting Laboratory
MOLA: Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (on Mars Observer)
MOMV: Manned Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle
MOTV: Manned Orbital Transfer Vehicle
MPC: Minor Planets Circular
MRSR: Mars Rover and Sample Return
MRSRM: Mars Rover and Sample Return Mission
MSFC: (George C.) Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA)
MTC: Man Tended Capability
NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (became NASA)
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASDA: NAtional Space Development Agency (Japan)
NASM: National Air and Space Museum
NASP: National AeroSpace Plane
NBS: National Bureau of Standards (now NIST)
NDV: NASP Derived Vehicle
NERVA: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application
NGC: New General Catalog
NICMOS: Near Infrared Camera / Multi Object Spectrometer (HST upgrade)
NIMS: Near-Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (on Galileo)
NIR: Near InfraRed
NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology (was NBS)
NLDP: National Launch Development Program
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAO: National Optical Astronomy Observatories
NRAO: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
NRO: National Reconnaissance Office
NS: Neutron Star
NSA: National Security Agency
NSF: National Science Foundation
NSO: National Solar Observatory
NSSDC: National Space Science Data Center
NTR: Nuclear Thermal Rocket(ry)
NTT: New Technology Telescope
OAO: Orbiting Astronomical Observatory
OCST: Office of Commercial Space Transportation
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
OMS: Orbital Maneuvering System
OPF: Orbiter Processing Facility
ORFEUS: Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer
OSC: Orbital Sciences Corporation
OSCAR: Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio
OSSA: Office of Space Science and Applications
OSSE: Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (on CGRO)
OTA: Optical Telescope Assembly (on HST)
OTHB: Over The Horizon Backscatter
OTV: Orbital Transfer Vehicle
OV: Orbital Vehicle
PAM: Payload Assist Module
PAM-D: Payload Assist Module, Delta-class
PI: Principal Investigator
PLSS: Portable Life Support System
PM: Pressurized Module
PMC: Permanently Manned Capability
PMIRR: Pressure Modulated InfraRed Radiometer (on Mars Observer)
PMT: PhotoMultiplier Tube
PSF: Point Spread Function
PSR: PulSaR
PV: Photovoltaic
PVO: Pioneer Venus Orbiter
QSO: Quasi-Stellar Object
RCI: Rodent Cage Interface (for SLS mission)
RCS: Reaction Control System
REM: Rat Enclosure Module (for SLS mission)
RF: Radio Frequency
RFI: Radio Frequency Interference
RIACS: Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
RMS: Remote Manipulator System
RNGC: Revised New General Catalog
ROSAT: ROentgen SATellite
ROUS: Rodents Of Unusual Size (I don't believe they exist)
RSN: Real Soon Now
RTG: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
RTLS: Return To Launch Site (Shuttle abort plan)
SAA: South Atlantic Anomaly
SAGA: Solar Array Gain Augmentation (for HST)
SAMPEX: Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle EXplorer
SAO: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
SAR: Search And Rescue
SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar
SARA: Satellite pour Astronomie Radio Amateur
SAREX: Search and Rescue Exercise
SAREX: Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment
SAS: Space Activity Suit
SAS: Space Adaptation Syndrome
SAT: Synthetic Aperture Telescope
S/C: SpaceCraft
SCA: Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
SCT: Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope
SDI: Strategic Defense Initiative
SDIO: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
SEI: Space Exploration Initiative
SEST: Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope
SETI: Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
SID: Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance
SIR: Shuttle Imaging Radar
SIRTF: Space (formerly Shuttle) InfraRed Telescope Facility
SL: SpaceLab
SLAR: Side-Looking Airborne Radar
SLC: Space Launch Complex
SLS: Space(lab) Life Sciences
SMC: Small Magellanic Cloud
SME: Solar Mesosphere Explorer
SMEX: SMall EXplorers
SMM: Solar Maximum Mission
SN: SuperNova (e.g., SN1987A)
SNR: Signal to Noise Ratio
SNR: SuperNova Remnant
SNU: Solar Neutrino Units
SOFIA: Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy
SOHO: SOlar Heliospheric Observatory
SPAN: Space Physics and Analysis Network
SPDM: Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator
SPOT: Systeme Probatoire pour l'Observation de la Terre
SPS: Solar Power Satellite
SRB: Solid Rocket Booster
SRM: Solid Rocket Motor
SSF: Space Station Fred (er, Freedom)
SSI: Solid-State Imager (on Galileo)
SSI: Space Studies Institut
SSME: Space Shuttle Main Engine
SSPF: Space Station Processing Facility
SSRMS: Space Station Remote Manipulator System
SST: Spectroscopic Survey Telescope
SST: SuperSonic Transport
SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit
STIS: Space Telescope Imaging Spectrometer (to replace FOC and GHRS)
STS: Shuttle Transport System (or) Space Transportation System
STScI: Space Telescope Science Institute
SWAS: Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite
SWF: ShortWave Fading
TAL: Transatlantic Abort Landing (Shuttle abort plan)
TAU: Thousand Astronomical Unit (mission)
TCS: Thermal Control System
TDRS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
TDRSS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System
TES: Thermal Emission Spectrometer (on Mars Observer)
TIROS: Television InfraRed Observation Satellite
TLA: Three Letter Acronym
TOMS: Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer
TPS: Thermal Protection System
TSS: Tethered Satellite System
UARS: Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
UBM: Unpressurized Berthing Mechanism
UDMH: Unsymmetrical DiMethyl Hydrazine
UFO: Unidentified Flying Object
UGC: Uppsala General Catalog
UHF: Ultra High Frequency
UIT: Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (Astro package)
UKST: United Kingdom Schmidt Telescope
USAF: United States Air Force
USMP: United States Microgravity Payload
UT: Universal Time (a.k.a. GMT, UTC, or Zulu Time)
UTC: Coordinated Universal Time (a.k.a. UT)
UV: UltraViolet
UVS: UltraViolet Spectrometer
VAB: Vehicle Assembly Building (formerly Vertical Assembly Building)
VAFB: Vandenberg Air Force Base
VEEGA: Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist (Galileo flight path)
VHF: Very High Frequency
VLA: Very Large Array
VLBA: Very Long Baseline Array
VLBI: Very Long Baseline Interferometry
VLF: Very Low Frequency
VLT: Very Large Telescope
VMS: Vertical Motion Simulator
VOIR: Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar (superseded by VRM)
VPF: Vertical Processing Facility
VRM: Venus Radar Mapper (now called Magellan)
WD: White Dwarf
WFPC: Wide Field / Planetary Camera (on HST)
WFPCII: Replacement for WFPC
WIYN: Wisconsin / Indiana / Yale / NOAO telescope
WSMR: White Sands Missile Range
WTR: Western Test Range
WUPPE: Wisconsin Ultraviolet PhotoPolarimter Experiment (Astro package)
XMM: X-ray Multi Mirror
XUV: eXtreme UltraViolet
YSO: Young Stellar Object


#!/usr/bin/perl
# 'alt', An Acronym Scrambling Program, by Larry Wall

$THRESHOLD = 2;

srand;
while (<>) {
    next unless /^([A-Z]\S+): */;
    $key = $1;
    $acro{$key} = $';
    @words = split(/\W+/,$');
    unshift(@words,$key);
    $off = 0;
    foreach $word (@words) {
        next unless $word =~ /^[A-Z]/;
        *w = $&;
        vec($w{$word}, $off++ % 6, 1) = 1;
    }
}

foreach $letter (A .. Z) {
    *w = $letter;
    @w = keys %w;
    if (@w < $THRESHOLD) {
        @d = `egrep '^$letter' /usr/dict/words`;
        chop @d;
        push(@w, @d);
    }
}

foreach $key (sort keys %acro) {
    $off = 0;
    $acro = $acro{$key};
    $acro =~ s/((([A-Z])[A-Z]*)[a-z]*)/ &pick($3, $2, $1, ++$off) || $& /eg;
    print "$key: $acro";
}

sub pick {
    local($letter, $prefix, $oldword, $off) = @_;
    $i = 0;
    if (length($prefix) > 1 && index($key,$prefix) < 0) {
        if ($prefix eq $oldword) {
            $prefix = '';
        }
        else {
            $prefix = $letter;
        }
    }
    if (length($prefix) > 1) {
        local(*w) = substr($prefix,0,1);
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ /^$prefix/i || ++$i > 30;
        $word =~ s/^$prefix/$prefix/i;
        $word;
    }
    elsif (length($prefix) == 1) {
        local(*w) = $prefix;
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && vec($w{$word}, $off, 1) || ++$i > 10;
        $word = "\u\L$word" if $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/;
        $word;
    }
    else {
        local(*w) = substr($oldword,0,1);
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/ == 0 || ++$i > 30;
        $word;
    }
}


-- Mark Bradford (bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu) <> To err is human, to moo bovine.
                  "It's an ill wind that gathers no moss."



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60151
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)

In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>>Titan IV launches ain't cheap 
>>Granted. But that's because titan IV's are bought by the governemnt. Titan
>>III is actually the cheapest way to put a pound in space of all US expendable
>>launchers.
>
>In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial
>market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?

The problem with Commercial Titan is that MM has made little or no attempt
to market it.  They're basically happy with their government business and
don't want to have to learn how to sell commercially.

A secondary problem is that it is a bit big.  They'd need to go after
multi-satellite launches, a la Ariane, and that complicates the marketing
task quite significantly.

They also had some problems with launch facilities at just the wrong time
to get them started properly.  If memory serves, the pad used for the Mars
Observer launch had just come out of heavy refurbishment work that had
prevented launches from it for a year or so.

There have been a few CT launches.  Mars Observer was one of them.  So
was that stranded Intelsat, and at least one of its brothers that reached
orbit properly.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60153
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

In article <C50zxA.1K9@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1ppm7j$ip@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|>I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing.
|>NASA guys developed the rule,  but no-one knew if it worked
|>until Boeing built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111?????
|
|Nope.  The decisive triumph of the area rule was when Convair's YF-102 --
|contractually commmitted to being a Mach 1.5 fighter and actually found
|to be incapable of going supersonic in level flight -- was turned into
|the area-ruled YF-102A which met the specs.  This was well before either
|the 727 or the FB-111; the 102 flew in late 1953, and Convair spent most
|of the first half of 1954 figuring out what went wrong and most of the
|second half building the first 102A.
|-- 
|All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
|                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry



Good thing i stuck in a couple of question marks up there.

I seem to recall, somebody built  or at least proposed a wasp waisetd
Passenger civil transport.  I thought it was a 727,  but maybe it
was a DC- 8,9???   Sure it had a funny passenger compartment,
but on the other hand  it seemed to save fuel.

I thought Area rules  applied even before transonic speeds,  just
not as badly.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60154
From: dchien@hougen.seas.ucla.edu (David H. Chien)
Subject: Orbit data - help needed

I have the "osculating elements at perigee" of an orbit, which I need
to convert to something useful, preferably distance from the earth
in evenly spaced time intervals. A GSM coordinate system is preferable,
but I convert from other systems. C, pascal, or fortran code, or
if you can point me to a book or something that'd be great.

here's the first few lines of the file.

0  ()
1  (2X, A3, 7X, A30)
2  (2X, I5, 2X, A3, 2X, E24.18)
3  (4X, A3, 7X, E24.18)
1  SMA       SEMI-MAJOR AXIS
1  ECC       ECCENTRICITY
1  INC       INCLINATION
1  OMG       RA OF ASCENDING NODE
1  POM       ARGUMENT OF PERICENTRE
1  TRA       TRUE ANOMALY
1  HAP       APOCENTRE HEIGHT
1  HPE       PERICENTRE HEIGHT
2      3  BEG  0.167290000000000000E+05
3    SMA       0.829159999999995925E+05
3    ECC       0.692307999999998591E+00
3    INC       0.899999999999999858E+02
3    OMG       0.184369999999999994E+03
3    POM       0.336549999999999955E+03
3    TRA       0.359999999999999943E+03
3    HAP       0.133941270127999174E+06
3    HPE       0.191344498719999910E+05
2      1  REF  0.167317532658774153E+05
3    SMA       0.829125167527418671E+05
3    ECC       0.691472268118590319E+00
3    INC       0.899596754214342091E+02
3    OMG       0.184377521828175002E+03
3    POM       0.336683788851850579E+03
3    TRA       0.153847166458030088E-05
3    HAP       0.133866082767180880E+06
3    HPE       0.192026707383028306E+05

Thanks in advance,

larry kepko
lkepko@igpp.ucla.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60155
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <843@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>> The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
>> built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
>> still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
>> technically reasonable.
>>
>
>	November/December, 1987 page 21 - "Science and Technology in Japan".
>			Seawater Uranium Recovery Experiment
>	"The ground uranium reserves are estimated at about 3.6 million tons,
> and it is anticipated that the demand and supply balance will collapse by the
> end of the 20th century.  In Japan, a resources poor country, technological
> development are now under way to economically collect uranium dissolved in
> seawater.  The total quanity of uranium dissolved in seawater is estimated
> to be about 4.6 billion tons, a huge amount when compared with ground uranium
> reserves......."


I hate to pour cold water on this, but currently seawater extracted
uranium, even using the new, improved fiber absorbers from Japan, is
about 20 times more expensive than uranium on the spot market.
Uranium is *very* cheap right now, around $10/lb.  Right now, there
are mines closing because they can't compete with places like Cigar
Lake in Canada (where the ore is so rich they present safety hazards
to the mines, who work in shielded vehicles).  Plenty of other sources
(for example, uranium from phosphate processing) would come on line before
uranium reached $200/lb.

"Demand and supply balance will collapse" is nonsense.  Supply and
demand always balance; what changes is the price.  Is uranium going
to increase in price by a factor of 20 by the end of the century?
Not bloody likely.  New nuclear reactors are not being built
at a sufficient rate.

Uranium from seawater is interesting, but it's a long term project, or
a project that the Japanese might justify on grounds of
self-sufficiency.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60156
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Nasa (dis)incentives

[questions and issues WRT congress raised and discussed}

Dennis Replies;
>Now black when it is white is just white. Except that when black is called
>white money is put into the system in a study to find out just when it is
>justified to call black, white.  It is also apparant that when white is called
>black, just the opposite occurs. Now white is a color, but when white is
>called black, it calls into question the validity of the color spectrum.
...
>It is a given however that NASA nor the military, whose competence in
>differentating black from white is well known (remember the black and
>white paint on the Saturn V rocket?) That nothing will occur here either.
>When black and white are used by congress, who cares nothing for results,
>just more money for pork barrel jobs brought about by the black/white
>controversy....

Dennis, why must you always see things in black and white terms? :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60157
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|
|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to
|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain
|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk
|enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they
|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the
|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.


Fred.

	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year
contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be
damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year
contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much
as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough
Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.

Look at SSF.  THis years funding is 2.2 Billion,  1.8 of which will
cover penalty clauses, due to the re-design.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60158
From: shread@ll.mit.edu ( Peter Shread)
Subject: El Sets

I am looking for a source of orbital element sets
other than UAF/Space Command.  I believe there is
one on CompuServe.  Please let me know what other
possible sources there are and how I can reach 
them.  Thanks much.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60159
From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Subject: Re: Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!)

victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:

>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
> 
>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.

>Does anyone know anything more specific?

>(Yes, this happened LONG before Star Trek and is apparently where they 
>got the reference for the "guy with the ears".)

Yes, long before Star Trek.  Before Einstein, in fact.

Vulcan as a planet inside Mercury was hypothesized to explain a perturbation
of Mercury's orbit that could not be explained by the known planets.  But
Einstein's theory of relativity explained Mercury's motion, and analysis
of Mercury's motion now shows there are _not_ any planets inside its orbit.

-Mike

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60160
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

In my opinion, this seems like a Bad Thing, at least on the surface.
Griffin seemed to be someone who was actually interested in getting
things done, and who was willing to look an innovative approaches to
getting things done faster, better, and cheaper.  It's unclear to me
whether he will be able to do this at his new position.

Does anyone know what his new duties will be?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60161
From: gallas2@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Sean Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Funding for NASA

I am doing a political science paper on the funding of NASA and pork-barrel 
politics.  I would be interested in information about funding practices and
histories of some of the major programs (Apollo, STS, SSF, etc) and the
funding of SSTO to contrast.  Could someone please recommend some sources
that would be useful?  Thank you.
-- 
Sean Gallagher
gallas2@rpi.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60162
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

on Date: 01 Apr 93 18:03:12 GMT, Ralph Buttigieg <ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
writes:
/Why can't the government just be a tennant? Private commercial concerns
/could just build a space station system and charge rent to the government
/financed researchers wanting to use it.

I believe that this was the thought behind the Industrial Space Facility.  I
don't remember all the details, but I think Space Services (?) wanted NASA to 
sign an anchor tenancy deal in order to help secure some venture capital but 
NASA didn't like the deal.  (I'm sure I'll hear about it if I'm wrong!)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60163
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Long Island (was Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power)

on Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:19:46 GMT, Edmund Hack <arabia!hack> writes:

/In article <1pgdno$3t1@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
/>
/>I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.  
/>
/No, Northrup has a plant on Long Island.

I don't think Northrup ever had a plant on Long Island.  The two main airframe
manufacturers there were (Fairchild)/Republic which closed its doors after the
T-46 cancellation, and Grumman (which is still hanging on last I time I called).
I think Sperry also started there.  If you're ever in the area check out the
Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchell field (now mostly parking lots behind the
Nassau Coliseum and the community college).  Good display of vehicles from Long
Island, including a LEM flight article.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60164
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?

on Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 12:38:50 GMT, Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>
writes:

/in essence, holding a match under the nozzle, is just *nuts*.  One
/thing you absolutely must do in such an engine is to guarantee that
/the propellants ignite as soon as they mix, within milliseconds.  To
/do otherwise is to fill your engine with a high explosive mixture
/which, when it finally does ignite, blows everything to hell.

Definitely! In one of the reports of an early test conducted by Rocketdyne at 
their Santa Susanna Field Lab ("the Hill" above the San Fernando and Simi 
Valleys), the result of a hung start was described as "structural failure" of 
the combustion chamber.  The inspection picture showed pumps with nothing below
, the CC had vaporized!  This was described in a class I took as a "typical
engineering understatement" :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60165
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)

>In article <VNci2B7w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:
>>From: victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking)
>>Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
>>Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 19:31:54 CDT
>>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
>> 
>>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
>>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
>>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.
>>
>>Does anyone know anything more specific?
>>

As I heard the story, before Albert came up the the theory
o'relativity and warped space, nobody could account for
Mercury's orbit.  It ran a little fast (I think) for simple
Newtonian physics.  With the success in finding Neptune to
explain the odd movments of Uranus, it was postulated that there
might be another inner planet to explain Mercury's orbit.  

It's unlikely anything bigger than an asteroid is closer to the
sun than Mercury.  I'm sure we would have spotted it by now.
Perhaps some professionals can confirm that.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| Heaven, n.:                                                   |
|   A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk | 
|   of their own personal affairs, and the good listen with     |
|   attention while you expound your own.                       |
|                  Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60166
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt) writes:

>In article <5APR199318045045@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>> temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>> close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>> comet.  Attempts to determine the comet's orbit has been complicated by
>> the near impossibility of measuring the comet's center of mass.
>>

>Am I missing something -- what does knowing the comet's center
>of mass do for you in orbit determination?

>Shag

I'm not sure, but it almost sounds like they can't figure out where the 
_nucleus_ is within the coma. If they're off by a couple hundred
miles, well, you can imagine the rest...

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60168
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.

This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..

I have seen where people have blown up ballons then sprayed material into them
that then drys and makes hard walls...

Why not do the same thing for a space station..

Fly up the docking rings and baloon materials and such, blow up the baloons,
spin then around (I know a problem in micro gravity) let them dry/cure/harden?
and cut a hole for the docking/attaching ring and bingo a space station..

Of course the ballons would have to be foil covered or someother radiation
protective covering/heat shield(?) and the material used to make the wals would
have to meet the out gasing and other specs or atleast the paint/covering of
the inner wall would have to be human safe.. Maybe a special congrete or maybe
the same material as makes caplets but with some changes (saw where someone
instea dof water put beer in the caplet mixture, got a mix that was just as
strong as congret but easier to carry around and such..)

Sorry for any spelling errors, I missed school today.. (grin)..

Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
going crazy in Nome Alaska, break up is here..

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60169
From: DKELO@msmail.pepperdine.edu (Dan Kelo)
Subject: M-81 Supernova


How 'bout some more info on that alleged supernova in M-81?
I might just break out the scope for this one.
____________________________________________________
"No sir, I don't like it! "-- Mr. Horse
Dan Kelo     dkelo@pepvax.pepperdine.edu
____________________________________________________

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60170
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working
and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either:

* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,

and/or

* A Saturn V went boom.

If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
have concentrated on the moon.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60171
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Portable Small Ground Station?dir

In article <C4zGAM.2nJ@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1993Apr2.214705.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>How difficult would it be to set up your own ground station?
> 
> Ground station for *what*?  At one extreme, some of the amateur-radio
> satellites have sometimes been reachable with hand-held radios.  At the
> other, nothing you can do in your back yard will let you listen in on
> Galileo.  Please be more specific.
> -- 
> All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                     - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry


SPECIFIC:
Basically to be able to do the things the big dadies can do.. Monitor, and
control if need be the Shuttle...

Such as the one in Australia and such....

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60172
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

>Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu>
>Pat> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related
>>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..

>Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech
>Pat> Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.

>Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.

Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these?
I also think the germans did some work on these in WWII.

>Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.

A lot of this was also done by the military...

>Microwave landing systems.  Supercritical wings.  General aviation
>air foils.

Weren't the first microwave landing systems from WWII too?

>--
>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60173
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
>Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
>Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
>shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

>In my opinion, this seems like a Bad Thing, at least on the surface.
>Griffin seemed to be someone who was actually interested in getting
>things done, and who was willing to look an innovative approaches to
>getting things done faster, better, and cheaper.  It's unclear to me
>whether he will be able to do this at his new position.

>Does anyone know what his new duties will be?

First I've heard of it. Offhand:

Griffin is no longer an "office" head, so that's bad.

On the other hand:

Regress seemed to think: we can't fund anything by Griffin, because
that would mean (and we have the lies by the old hardliners about the
$ 400 billion mars mission to prove it) that we would be buying into a
mission to Mars that would cost 400 billion. Therefore there will be
no Artemis or 20 million dollar lunar orbiter et cetera...

They were killing Griffin's main program simply because some sycophants
somewhere had Congress beleivin that to do so would simply be to buy into
the same old stuff. Sorta like not giving aid to Yeltsin because he's
a communist hardliner.

At least now the sort of reforms Griffin was trying to bring forward
won't be trapped in their own little easily contained and defunded
ghetto. That Griffin is staying in some capacity is very very very
good. And if he brings something up, noone can say "why don't you go
back to the OSE where you belong" (and where he couldn't even get money
for design studies).
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60174
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

In article <C4zHKw.3Dn@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <2736@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>This bit interests me.  How much automatic control is there?  Is it
>>purely autonomous or is there some degree of ground control?
> 
> The "stick-and-rudder man" is always the onboard computer.  The computer
> normally gets its orders from a stored program, but they can be overridden
> from the ground.
> 
>>How is
>>the transition from aerodynamic flight (if thats what it is) to hover
>>accomplished?  This is the really new part...
> 
> It's also one of the tricky parts.  There are four different ideas, and
> DC-X will probably end up trying all of them.  (This is from talking to
> Mitch Burnside Clapp, who's one of the DC-X test pilots, at Making Orbit.)
> 
> (1) Pop a drogue chute from the nose, light the engines once the thing
> 	stabilizes base-first.  Simple and reliable.  Heavy shock loads
> 	on an area of structure that doesn't otherwise carry major loads.
> 	Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose
> 	operation is mission-critical.
> 
> (2) Switch off pitch stability -- the DC is aerodynamically unstable at
> 	subsonic speeds -- wait for it to flip, and catch it at 180
> 	degrees, then light engines.  A bit scary.
> 
> (3) Light the engines and use thrust vectoring to push the tail around.
> 	Probably the preferred method in the long run.  Tricky because
> 	of the fuel-feed plumbing:  the fuel will start off in the tops
> 	of the tanks, then slop down to the bottoms during the flip.
> 	Keeping the engines properly fed will be complicated.
> 
> (4) Build up speed in a dive, then pull up hard (losing a lot of speed,
> 	this thing's L/D is not that great) until it's headed up and
> 	the vertical velocity drops to zero, at which point it starts
> 	to fall tail-first.  Light engines.  Also a bit scary, and you
> 	probably don't have enough altitude left to try again.
> -- 
> All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                     - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??
Why do the Martian Landing thing..  Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Please enlighten me... Ignorance is easy to correct. make a mistake and
everyone will let you know you messed up..

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60175
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station, Go Commerical.

Sounds liek what the FED has to do is sign a 50 or more year lease to use
certain parts of a space station that is built and designed and such by a
commerical company or consortium of companies (such as like Alyeska) for a
small amount of rent in return for certain incentives and such.. Such as tax
and other right off and also a monopoly on certain products.. The commerical
builders would have certain perks given to them to make there end easier (taxes
, contracts, regulatory concesions and such..)

Is it workable, just might work..

After all, if China can lease out Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong can
make money, this could work..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60176
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?

Would someone please send me James Oberg's email address, if he has
one and if someone reading this list knows it?  I wanted to send
him a comment on something in his terraforming book.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	Potential explosive yield of the annual global
	production of borax:  5 million megatons

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60177
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: MACH 25 landing site bases?

The supersonic booms hear a few months ago over I belive San Fran, heading east
of what I heard, some new super speed Mach 25 aircraft?? What military based
int he direction of flight are there that could handle a Mach 25aircraft on its
landing decent?? Odd question??

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60178
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1993Mar31.191658.9836@mksol.dseg.ti.com: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
:Just a bit off, Phil.  We don't reprocess nuclear fuel because what
:you get from the reprocessing plant is bomb-grade plutonium.  It is
:also cheaper, given current prices of things, to simply fabricate new
:fuel rods rather than reprocess the old ones, creating potentially
:dangerous materials (from a national security point of view) and then
:fabricate that back into fuel rods.

Fabricating with reprocessed plutonium may result in something that may go
kind of boom, but its hardly decent bomb grade plutonium.  If you want bomb
grade plutonium use a research reactor, not a power reactor.  But if you want
a bomb, don't use plutonium, use uranium.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60179
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
>Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
>Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
>shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

Unfortunately, things have been boding ill (is that a legitimate conjugation?)
for a while.  While the Office of Exploration had some great ideas, they never
got much money.  I've heard good things about Griffin, but it's hard to want
him back in a job where he couldn't do anything.

>Does anyone know what his new duties will be?

The group examining the Freedom-based space station redesign proposals is 
headed by Michael Griffin, "NASA's cheif engineer" in the words of Space News.
I believe this is him.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de la realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60180
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

[Excellent discussion of DC-X landing techniques by Henry deleted]

>Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??

The DC-X will not take of horizontally.  It takes of vertically. 

>Why do the Martian Landing thing.. 

For several reasons.  Vertical landings don't require miles of runway and limit
noise pollution.  They don't require wheels or wings.  Just turn on the engines
and touch down.  Of course, as Henry pointed out, vetical landings aren't quite
that simple.

>Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
>much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

Well, to be blunt, yes.  But at least you're learning.

>Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then...

The Soyuz vehicles use parachutes for the descent and then fire small rockets
just before they hit the ground.  Parachutes are, however, not especially
practical if you want to reuse something without much effort.  The landings
are also not very comfortable.  However, in the words of Georgy Grechko,
"I prefer to have bruises, not to sink."


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de la realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60181
From: ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in
first and second grade (69-70, 70-71).  They came in Chocolate,
strawberry, and peanut butter and were cylinders about 10cm long
and 1cm in diameter wrapped in yellow space foil (well, it seemed
like space foil at the time).  

The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.

Man, these were my "60's."


-- 
Gavin Helf
UC Berkeley Political Science
Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies
ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60182
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Area Rule (was Re: Space Research Spin Off)

Can somebody elaborate on "Area Ruling".  I gather it's something to
do with aerodynamics of trans-sonic planes, and can be summarised as
"Coke bottle good, Coke can bad".  Anyone provide more details,
derivation etc?
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60183
From: seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>comet.

Ooooh -- who would have thought that Galileo would get the chance to
check out a comet TOO?!?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60184
From: drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: So I'm an idiot, what else is new?


In article <9303311213.AA49462@jsc.nasa.gov>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu (R. E. McElwaine) writes:
|> RUSSIA'S OPERATIVE
|> 
|>                In March 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
|>           proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
|>           defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) AGAINST
...

Funny.  A bit disturbing.  Forging a posting seems somewhat unethical, even
if the subject is as notorious as McElwaine.

Followups should definitely not go to sci.space.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60185
From: roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson)
Subject: Re: Magellan Venus Maps (Thanks)


Thanks Ron and Peter for some very nice maps.

I have an advice though.  You wrote that the maps were reduced to 256
colors.  As far ad I understand JPEG pictures gets much better (and
the compressed files smaller) if you use the original 3 color 24 bit
data when converting to JPEG.

Thanks again,

--
Roland Karlsson             SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Internet: roland@sics.se    Tel: +46 8 752 15 40          Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Telex: 812 6154 7011 SICS   Ttx: 2401-812 6154 7011=SICS

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60187
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: SSF Redesign: Constellation

SSF is up for redesign again.  Let's do it right this
time!  Let's step back and consider the functionality we want:

[1] microgravity/vacuum process research
[2] life sciences research (adaptation to space)
[3] spacecraft maintenence 

The old NASA approach, explified by Shuttle and SSF so far, was to
centralize functionality.  These projects failed to meet
their targets by a wide margin: the military and commercial users 
took most of their payloads off Shuttle after wasting much effort to 
tie their payloads to it, and SSF has crumbled into disorganization
and miscommunication.  Over $50 billion has been spent on these
two projects with no reduction in launch costs and littel improvement
in commercial space industrialization.  Meanwhile, military and commercial 
users have come up with a superior strategy for space development: the 
constellation.  

Firstly, different functions are broken down into different 
constellations placed in the optimal orbit for each function:
thus we have the GPS/Navstar constellation in 12-hour orbits,
comsats in Clarke and Molniya orbits, etc.  Secondly, the task
is distributed amongst several spacecraft in a constellation,
providing for redundancy and full coverage where needed.

SSF's 3 main functions require quite different environments
and are also prime candidates for constellization.

[1] We have the makings of a microgravity constellation now:
COMET and Mir for long-duration flights, Shuttle/Spacelab for
short-duration flights.  The best strategy for this area is
inexpensive, incremental improvement: installation of U.S. facilities 
on Mir, Shuttle/Mir linkup, and transition from Shuttle/Spacelab
to a much less expensive SSTO/Spacehab/COMET or SSTO/SIF/COMET.
We might also expand the research program to take advantage of 
interesting space environments, eg the high-radiation Van Allen belt 
or gas/plasma gradients in comet tails.  The COMET system can
be much more easily retrofitted for these tasks, where a 
station is too large to affordably launch beyond LEO.

[2] We need to study life sciences not just in microgravity,
but also in lunar and Martian gravities, and in the radiation
environments of deep space instead of the protected shelter
of LEO.  This is a very long-term, low-priority project, since
astronauts will have little practical use in the space program
until costs come down orders of magnitude.  Furthermore, using
astronauts severely restricts the scope of the investigation,
and the sample size.  So I propose LabRatSat, a constellation
tether-bolo satellites that test out various levels of gravity
in super-Van-Allen-Belt orbits that are representative of the
radiation environment encountered on Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars,
Earth-asteroid, etc. trips.  The miniaturized life support
machinery might be operated real-time from earth thru a VR
interface.  AFter several orbital missions have been flown,
follow-ons can act as LDEFs on the lunar and Martian surface,
testing out the actual environment at low cost before $billions
are spent on astronauts.

[3] By far the largest market for spacecraft servicing is in 
Clarke orbit.  I propose a fleet of small teleoperated
robots and small test satellites on which ground engineers can
practice their skills.  Once in place, robots can pry stuck
solar arrays and antennas, attach solar battery power packs,
inject fuel, etc.  Once the fleet is working, it can be
spun off to commercial company(s) who can work with the comsat
companies to develop comsat replaceable module standards.

By applying the successful constellation strategy, and getting
rid of the failed centralized strategy of STS and old SSF, we
have radically improved the capability of the program while
greatly cutting its cost.  For a fraction of SSF's pricetag,
we can fix satellites where the satellites are, we can study
life's adaptation to a much large & more representative variety 
of space environments, and we can do microgravity and vacuum
research inexpensively and, if needed, in special-purpose
orbits.

N.B., we can apply the constellation strategy to space exploration
as well, greatly cutting its cost and increasing its functionality.  
Mars Network and Artemis are two good examples of this; more ambitiously 
we can set up a network of native propellant plants on Mars that can be used
to fuel planet-wide rover/ballistic hopper prospecting and
sample return.  The descendants of LabRatSat's technology can
be used as a Mars surface LDEF and to test out closed-ecology
greenhouses on Mars at low cost.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60188
From: drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Quaint US Archaisms


In article <C512wC.B0M.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> Oh, and the other advantage is that you don't have shit constants like
|> 32.??? hanging around.

No, instead you have stupid things like 3600 and 86400 and 31556925.9747 and
299792.458 and 9.80665 and ...

How many cc's in a ml anyway?  The metric system has its problems, just not
as many of them.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60189
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: The Area Rule

I read it refered to as the "parabolic cross-section" rule;
the idea was that if you plot the area of the fuselage cross-
section as a function of the point fore-and-aft along the 
fuselage, a plot that is a **paraboloid** minimizes somethin' 
or 'nother (to be technical about it).


-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60190
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)

In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>>[Titan III is the cheapest US launcher on a $/lb basis]

>In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial
>market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?

They have a few problems. The biggest technical problem is the need to find
two satellites going to the same rough orbit for a luanch.

They also don't show much interest in commercial launches. There is more
money to be made churning out Titan IV's for the government. After all,
it isn't every day you find a sucker, er, customer who thinks paying
three times the commercial rate for launch services is a good idea!

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------71 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60191
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Why can't the government just be a tennant?

>I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
>current spending rules don't permit it to be workable. 

Actually, that is no longer true. In the last few years Congress has
ammended laws to provide whatever is needed. Note that both Spacehab
and Comet are funded this way.

The problems aren't legal nor technical. The problem is NASA's culture.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------71 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60192
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: space food sticks

John Elson (jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" 

I remember those awful things.  They were dry and crumbly, and I
recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they
kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G.  She had no clue.
I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.

Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.

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

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60193
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Metric vs English

In <1993Apr5.195215.16833@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

>Keith Mancus (mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> > SI neatly separates the concepts of "mass", "force" and "weight"
>> > which have gotten horribly tangled up in the US system.
>> 
>>   This is not a problem with English units.  A pound is defined to
>> be a unit of force, period.  There is a perfectly good unit called
>> the slug, which is the mass of an object weighing 32.2 lbs at sea level.
>> (g = 32.2 ft/sec^2, of course.)
>> 

>American Military English units, perhaps.  Us real English types were once 
>taught that a pound is mass and a poundal is force (being that force that
>causes 1 pound to accelerate at 1 ft.s-2).  We had a rare olde tyme doing 
>our exams in those units and metric as well.

American, perhaps, but nothing military about it.  I learned (mostly)
slugs when we talked English units in high school physics and while
the teacher was an ex-Navy fighter jock the book certainly wasn't
produced by the military.

[Poundals were just too flinking small and made the math come out
funny; sort of the same reason proponents of SI give for using that.] 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60194
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Market or gov failures

In <C4tCL8.7xI.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:


>[Fred saying that gov coercive poser is necessary for any space program]

>I reply;
>>>BTW, Fred, you've really crossed the border, since you admit that the ideas
>>>you support can only be carried out with coercive power.  Now that's really
>>>f***in' intolerant, so get off yer high horse about tolerance.

>Fred replies;
>>No, Tommy, I "admit" that there are such things as 'market failures'
>>which necessitate intervention by other than capitalist forces to
>>correct.

>I guess your understanding of this 'market failure' should be classified
>under Phil's 'economics on the level of 19th century medicine', since you
>apparently completely ignored that this 'market failure' can as easily,
>or even much more easily, be attributed to "government intervention
>failure".  So, in addition to a strong moral argument against what you
>propose, there is also a strong utilitarian argument, namely that gov's
>destruction of wealth through confiscastory taxation and redistribution
>on a major scale has made significant private capital investments harder
>to make.

I note that you make no such case as you claim can be 'even more
easily made'.  Yes, the argument can (and has) been made that current
government policy creates even larger market barriers than there were
in the first place, but there is no such term as 'government failure',
since the government can change policies whenever it pleases.  The
market doesn't do that and is governed by (relatively) well-understood
forces.  This libertopican bilge about 'moral arguments' about
taxation, etc., is, at bottom, so much simplistic economic thinking.
It can only be 'justified' by cliche derision of anyone who knows more
about economics than the libertopian -- which is what invariably
happens.  Tripe a la Tommy, the new libertopian dish.

>>Get a clue, little boy, and go salve your wounded pride in my not
>>considering you infallible in some other fashion.  I'm not interested
>>in your ego games.

>Puh-leese, Fred.  This, besides being simply an attempt to be insulting,
>really belongs on private mail.  If 'ego-games' are so unimportatnt to
>you, why the insults and this strange negative attatchment for me?

Wherever do you get this inflated idea of your own importance?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60195
From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
>Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
>upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
>of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
>have concentrated on the moon.

Great speculation - I remember being proud on behalf of all the free
world (you think that way when you are seven years old) that we had
got there first. Now I'm almost sorry that it worked out that way.

I guess the soviets would have taken the victory seriously too, and
would almost certainly not have fallen victim to the complacency that
overtook the US program. Perhaps stretching to match US efforts would
have destabilized them sooner than it did in fact - and in the tradition
of Marvel Comics 'What If', this destabilization in the Brezhnev era might
have triggered the third world war. Hmm, maybe it was a giant leap after all.

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60196
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <1993Apr1.204657.29451@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator,
>>>perhaps with some left over.  A very high power (100's of MW CW or
>>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears
>>>achievable using a linear accelerator.  The biggest question mark
>>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all
>>>the elements being incinerated.
>>
>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like
>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?

>Fred, the honest thing to do would be to admit your criticism on
>scientific grounds was invalid, rather than pretend you were actually
>talking about engineering feasibility.  Given you postings, I can't
>say I am surprised, though.

Well, pardon me for trying to continue the discussion rather than just
tugging my forelock in dismay at having not considered actually trying
to recover the energy from this process (which is at least trying to
go the 'right' way on the energy curve).  Now, where *did* I put those
sackcloth and ashes?

[I was not and am not 'pretending' anything; I am *so* pleased you are
not surprised, though.]

>No, it is nothing like perpetual motion.  

Note that I didn't say it was perpetual motion, or even that it
sounded like perpetual motion; the phrase was "sounds almost like
perpetual motion", which I, at least, consider a somewhat different
propposition than the one you elect to criticize.  Perhaps I should
beg your pardon for being *too* precise in my use of language?

>The physics is well
>understood; the energy comes from fission of actinides in subcritical
>assemblies.  Folks have talked about spallation reactors since the
>1950s.  Pulsed spallation neutron sources are in use today as research
>tools.  Accelerator design has been improving, particularly with
>superconducting accelerating cavities, which helps feasibility.  Los
>Alamos has expertise in high current accelerators (LAMPF), so I
>believe they know what they are talking about.

I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching
technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the
trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of
separating things first and having a different 'run' for each
actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull
(relatively) clean material out the other.  Once the costs,
technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this
one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun.  Sure, it's possible
and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable
approach? 

And I still wonder at what sort of 'burning' rate you could get with
something like this, as opposed to what kind of energy you would
really recover as opposed to what it would cost to build and power
with and without the energy recovery.  Are we talking ounces, pounds,
or tons (grams, kilograms, or metric tons, for you SI fans) of
material and are we talking days, weeks, months, or years (days,
weeks, months or years, for you SI fans -- hmmm, still using a
non-decimated time scale, I see  ;-))?

>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
>built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
>technically reasonable.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60197
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <841@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>>	Well this pretty much says it.  I have gotten alot of replys to this
>>and it looks like oil is only on Earth.  So if those greedy little oil companys
>>who obviously don't give **** about it uses up all the oil then that leaves us
>>high a dry.

>Greedy little oil companies?  Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the 
>demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet.  If we
>run out, its all our faults.

He also ignores a few other things.  While organics would become
significantly more expensive were all the oil to disappear (and thus
some things would no longer be economically feasible), oil is hardly
an irreplaceable resource any more than most other consumables.  As
supply decreases, prices rise and alternatives become more
competetive.  He also needs to consider that there has been an
estimated 30 years of reserves pretty much as long as anyone has cared
about petroleum; whatever the current usage rate is, we always seem to
have about a 30 year reserve that we know about.

[I'm not sure that last figure is still true -- we tend not to look as
hard when prices are comparatively cheap -- but it was certainly true
during hte 'oil crisis' days of the 70's.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60198
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: STS-56 Press Kit

Does anyone know ifthe STS-56 email press kit was ever released?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60199
From: lochem@fys.ruu.nl (Gert-Jan van Lochem)
Subject: Dutch: symposium compacte objecten

Sterrenkundig symposium 'Compacte Objecten'
                                             op 26 april 1993


In het jaar 1643, zeven jaar na de oprichting van de
Universiteit van Utrecht, benoemde de universiteit haar
eerste sterrenkundige waarnemer. Hiermee ontstond de tweede
universiteitssterrenwacht ter wereld. Aert Jansz, de eerste
waarnemer, en zijn opvolgers voerden de Utrechtse sterrenkunde
in de daaropvolgende jaren, decennia en eeuwen naar de
voorhoede van het astronomisch onderzoek. Dit jaar is het 350
jaar geleden dat deze historische benoeming plaatsvond.

De huidige generatie Utrechtse sterrenkundigen en studenten
sterrenkunde, verenigd in het Sterrekundig Instituut Utrecht,
vieren de benoeming van hun 'oervader' middels een breed scala
aan feestelijke activiteiten. Zo is er voor scholieren een
planetenproject, programmeert de Studium Generale een aantal
voordrachten met een sterrenkundig thema en wordt op de Dies
Natalis aan een astronoom een eredoctoraat uitgereikt. Er
staat echter meer op stapel.

Studenten natuur- en sterrenkunde kunnen op 26 april aan een
sterrenkundesymposium deelnemen. De onderwerpen van het
symposium zijn opgebouwd rond een van de zwaartepunten van het
huidige Utrechtse onderzoek: het onderzoek aan de zogeheten
'compacte objecten', de eindstadia in de evolutie van sterren.
Bij de samenstelling van het programma is getracht de
deelnemer een zo aktueel en breed mogelijk beeld te geven van
de stand van zaken in het onderzoek aan deze eindstadia. In de
eerste, inleidende lezing zal dagvoorzitter prof. Lamers een
beknopt overzicht geven van de evolutie van zware sterren,
waarna de zeven overige sprekers in lezingen van telkens een
half uur nader op de specifieke evolutionaire eindprodukten
zullen ingaan. Na afloop van elke lezing is er gelegenheid tot
het stellen van vragen. Het dagprogramma staat afgedrukt op
een apart vel.
Het niveau van de lezingen is afgestemd op tweedejaars
studenten natuur- en sterrenkunde. OOK ANDERE BELANGSTELLENDEN
ZIJN VAN HARTE WELKOM!

Tijdens de lezing van prof. Kuijpers zullen, als alles goed
gaat, de veertien radioteleskopen van de Radiosterrenwacht
Westerbork worden ingezet om via een directe verbinding tussen
het heelal, Westerbork en Utrecht het zwakke radiosignaal van
een snel roterende kosmische vuurtoren, een zogeheten pulsar,
in de symposiumzaal door te geven en te audiovisualiseren.
Prof. Kuijpers zal de binnenkomende signalen (elkaar snel
opvolgende scherp gepiekte pulsen radiostraling) bespreken en
trachten te verklaren.
Het slagen van dit unieke experiment staat en valt met de
technische haalbaarheid ervan. De op te vangen signalen zijn
namelijk zo zwak, dat pas na een waarnemingsperiode van 10
miljoen jaar genoeg energie is opgevangen om een lamp van 30
Watt een seconde te laten branden! Tijdens het symposium zal
er niet zo lang gewacht hoeven te worden: de hedendaagse
technologie stelt ons in staat live het heelal te beluisteren.

Deelname aan het symposium kost f 4,- (exclusief lunch) en
f 16,- (inclusief lunch). Inschrijving geschiedt door het
verschuldigde bedrag over te maken op ABN-AMRO rekening
44.46.97.713 t.n.v. stichting 350 JUS. Het gironummer van de
ABN-AMRO bank Utrecht is 2900. Bij de inschrijving dient te
worden aangegeven of men lid is van de NNV. Na inschrijving
wordt de symposiummap toegestuurd. Bij inschrijving na
31 maart vervalt de mogelijkheid een lunch te reserveren.

Het symposium vindt plaats in Transitorium I,
Universiteit Utrecht.

Voor meer informatie over het symposium kan men terecht bij
Henrik Spoon, p/a S.R.O.N., Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht.
Tel.: 030-535722. E-mail: henriks@sron.ruu.nl.



******* DAGPROGRAMMA **************************************


 9:30   ONTVANGST MET KOFFIE & THEE

10:00   Opening
           Prof. dr. H.J.G.L.M. Lamers (Utrecht)

10:10   Dubbelster evolutie
           Prof. dr. H.J.G.L.M. Lamers

10:25   Radiopulsars
           Prof. dr. J.M.E. Kuijpers (Utrecht)

11:00   Pulsars in dubbelster systemen
           Prof. dr. F. Verbunt (Utrecht)

11:50   Massa & straal van neutronensterren
           Prof. dr. J. van Paradijs (Amsterdam)

12:25   Theorie van accretieschijven
           Drs. R.F. van Oss (Utrecht)

13:00   LUNCH

14:00   Hoe zien accretieschijven er werkelijk uit?
           Dr. R.G.M. Rutten (Amsterdam)

14:35   Snelle fluktuaties bij accretie op neutronensterren
        en zwarte gaten
           Dr. M. van der Klis (Amsterdam)

15:10   THEE & KOFFIE

15:30   Zwarte gaten: knippen en plakken met ruimte en tijd
           Prof. dr. V. Icke (leiden)

16:05   afsluiting

16:25   BORREL

-- 
Gert-Jan van Lochem	     \\		"What is it?"
Fysische informatica	      \\	"Something blue"
Universiteit Utrecht           \\	"Shapes, I need shapes!"
030-532803			\\			- HHGG -

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60200
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Cosmos 2238

I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993-
018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short,
EVERYTHING! Can you help?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60201
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr6.061329.25582@den.mmc.com>, seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes...
>baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>>temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>>close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>>comet.
> 
>Ooooh -- who would have thought that Galileo would get the chance to
>check out a comet TOO?!?

Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60202
From: msmilor@skat.usc.edu (Mark Smilor)
Subject: Summer Internships


	
        Hi Folks not exactly certain if this is the best place to ask, but I am
searching for a summer internship in engineering.  I will be graduating in early
 May with a B.S. in aerospace engineering and then pursuing my Masters this Fall
.Does anyone know of anything that is available, I am in the process of applyi
ng to some of the larger companies (ie. MacDac, Martin Marietta, Lockheed.  If a
nyone knows of anything I would appreciate it if you could mail it to me.

Thanks in advance

Mark Smilor
msmilor@skat.usc.edu
or
smilor@aludra.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60203
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu> ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes:
> I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in
> first and second grade (69-70, 70-71).  They came in Chocolate,
> strawberry, and peanut butter and were cylinders about 10cm long
> and 1cm in diameter wrapped in yellow space foil (well, it seemed
> like space foil at the time).  

Wasn't there a "plain" flavor too?  They looked more like some
kind of extruded industrial product than food -- perfectly
smooth cylinders with perfectly smooth ends.  Kinda scary.

> The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
> most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
> a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
> approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.

An other post described it as like a "microwaved Tootsie Roll" --
which captures the texture pretty well.  As for taste, they were
like candy, only not very sweet -- does that make sense? I recall
liking them for their texture, not taste. I guess I have well
developed texture buds.

> Man, these were my "60's."

It was obligatory to eat a few while watching "Captain Scarlet".
Does anybody else remember _that_, as long as we're off the
topic of space?

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60204
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu>, matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
> Greedy little oil companies?  Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the
> demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet.  If we
> run out, its all our faults.
>

	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
Any comments?

						Will...

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60205
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste


	Thanks for the Update.

							Will...

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60206
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: space food sticks


In article <C50z77.EE6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Elson) writes:
>Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This
>was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along
>with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people
>who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy. 
>Any information would be greatly appreciated. 

A freeze dried Tootsie Roll (tm).  The actual taste sensation was like nothing
you will ever willingly experience.  The amazing thing was that we ate a second
one, and a third and ....

I doubt that they actually flew on missions, as I'm certain they did "bad
things" to the gastrointestinal tract.  Compared to Space Food Sticks, Tang was
a gastronomic contribution to mankind.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |

PS. I don't think Tang flew, either.  Although it was developed under contract.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60207
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope

In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah Millgram) writes:


>A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing
>the envelope" comes from.  Anyone out there know?

Every aircraft has flight constraints for speed/AOA/power.  When
graphed, these define the 'flight envelope' of that aircraft,
presumably so named because the graphed line encloses (envelopes) the
area on the graph that represents conditions where the aircraft
doesn't fall out of the sky.  Hence, 'pushing the envelope' becomes
'operating at (or beyond) the edge of the flight (or operational)
envelope'. 

Note that the envelope isn't precisely known until someone actually
flies the airplane in those regions -- up to that point, all there are
are the theoretical predictions.  Hence, one of the things test pilots
do for a living is 'push the envelope' to find out how close the
correspondence between the paper airplane and the metal one is -- in
essence, 'pushing back' the edges of the theoretical envelope to where
the airplane actually starts to fail to fly.  Note, too, that this is
done is a quite calculated and careful way; flight tests are generally
carefully coreographed and just what is going to be 'pushed' and how
far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans,
such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed
taxi tests).

I'm sure Mary can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about
this process (and then some).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60208
From: ml@chiron.astro.uu.se (Mats Lindgren)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

Comet P/Helin-Roman-Crockett also spent some time as a temporary
satellite to Jupiter a few years ago if you believe the calculations
by Tancredi, G., Lindgren, M. and  Rickman, H.(Astron. Astrophys., 
239, pp. 375-380, 1990).
-- 


-------------------------------------------------------------
|  Mats Lindgren             |  Mats.Lindgren@astro.uu.se   |
|  Astronomical Observatory  |  21619::laban::ml            |
|  Box 515                   |                              |
|  751 20 Uppsala            |  Phone (+46) (0)18 51 35 22  |
|  Sweden                    |  Fax               52 75 83  |
-------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60209
From: enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist)
Subject: Re: Abyss: breathing fluids

In article <93089.204431GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I am a bit nervous about posting this beacause it is begining to
>stray fron the topic of space but then again that doesn't seem to
>stop alot of other people. :-)
>
>With all of this talk about breathing at high pressures, I began
>to think about the movie Abyss. If you remember, in that movie one
>of the characters dove to great depths by wearing a suit that used
>a fluid that carries oxegen as opposed to some sort of gas. Now I
>have heard that mice can breath this fluid but for some reason, humans
>are unable to. Does anyone know more details about this?
>
>Gregson Vaux
>

I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump
the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes.
So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on 
hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times
as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas
and liquid comparision of course!

Acurist









Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60210
From: glover@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Eric Glover)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr06.020021.186145@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working
>and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either:
>* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,
>and/or
>* A Saturn V went boom.

The Apollo fire was harsh, A Saturn V explosion would have been
hurtful but The Soviets winning would have been crushing. That could have
been *the* technological turning point for the US turning us
from Today's "We can do anything, we're *the* Super Power" to a much more
reserved attitude like the Soviet Program today.

Kennedy was gone by 68\69, the war was still on is the east, I think
the program would have stalled badly and the goal of the moon
by 70 would have been dead with Nasa trying to figure were they went wrong.
 
>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
>Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
>upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
>of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
>have concentrated on the moon.

I speulate that:
+The Saturn program would have been pushed into
the 70s with cost over runs that would just be too evil. 
Nixon still wins.
+The Shuttle was never proposed and Skylab never built.
+By 73 the program stalled yet again under the fuel crisis.
+A string of small launches mark the mid seventies.
+By 76 the goal of a US man on the moon is dead and the US space program
drifts till the present day.


>/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
>| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
>| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
>| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
>|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60211
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Abyss: breathing fluids

In article <C4t3K3.498@cck.coventry.ac.uk> enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes:
|
|I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump
|the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes.
|So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on 
|hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times
|as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas
|and liquid comparision of course!


Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid.
Sorta like the portable Iron Lung?   Put some sort of flex tubing
around the 'aquanauts' chest.  Cyclically compress it  and it will
push enough on the chest wall to support breathing?????

You'd have to trust your breather,  but in space, you have to trust
your suit anyway.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60212
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope

> In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah  
Millgram) writes:
> 
> 
> A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing
> the envelope" comes from.  Anyone out there know?
> 
Everbody has been defining envelope.
Why was the world "envelope" chosen, rather than say "shell", 
or "boundary".  In analogy with the envelopes of airships perhaps?

Actually, "shell" might be good.  Push the shell too hard and
it (the aircraft?) breaks. 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60213
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Cosmos 2238: an EORSAT

>Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 15:40:47 GMT

>I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993-
>018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short,
>EVERYTHING! Can you help?

>-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ocean Reconnaissance Launch Surprises West
Space News, April 5-11, 1993, p.2
[Excerpts]
     Russia launched its first ocean reconnaissance satellite in 26 months 
March 30, confounding Western analysts who had proclaimed the program dead. 
     The Itar-TASS news agency announced the launch of Cosmos 2238 from 
Plesetsk Cosmodrome, but provided little description of the payload's mission. 
     However, based on the satellite's trajectory, Western observers 
identified it as a military spacecraft designed to monitor electronic 
emissions from foreign naval ships in order to track their movement. 
     Geoff Perry of the Kettering Group in England... [said]  Western 
observers had concluded that no more would be launched. But days after the 
last [such] satellite re-entered the Earth's atmosphere, Cosmos 2238 was 
launched. 

"Cosmos-2238" Satellite Launched for Defense Ministry
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian  1238 GMT 30 March 1993
Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27
by ITAR-TASS correspondent Veronika Romanenkova
     Moscow, 30 March -- The Cosmos-2238 satellite was launched at 1600 Moscow 
time today from the Baykonur by a "Tsiklon-M" carrier rocket. An ITAR-TASS 
correspondent was told at the press center of Russia's space-military forces 
that the satellite was launched in the interests of the Russian Defense 
Ministry. 

Parameters Given
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 0930 GMT 31 March 1993
Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27
     Moscow, 31 March -- Another artificial Earth satellite, Cosmos-2238, was 
launched on 30 March from the Baykonur cosmodrome. 
     The satellite carries scientific apparatus for continuing space research. 
The satellite has been placed in an orbit with the following parameters: 
initial period of revolution--92.8 minutes; apogee--443 km; perigee--413 km; 
orbital inclination--65 degrees. 
     Besides scientific apparatus the satellite carries a radio system for the 
precise measurement of orbital elements and a radiotelemetry system for 
transmitting to Earth data about the work of the instruments and scientific 
apparatus. The apparatus aboard the satellite is working normally. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60214
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.

What would all of you out there in net land think of the big 6 (Martin
Mariatta, Boeing, Mcdonell Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Rockwell)
getting together, and forming a consortium to study exactly what the market
price pints are for building reusable launch vehicles, and spending say
$3million to do that.  Recognizing that most of the military requirements
for launch vehicles are pulled out of a hat somewhere (say, has the shuttle 
ever really used that 1200mi crossrange capability?  You get the idea, figure
out how many, how often, where to, etc...)

Then taking this data, and forming a sematech type company (bad example, I
know... but at least its an example...)  To develop between 3 and 5 craft
designs.  Then to take all of those designs, and figure out EXACTLY what
the technologies are, and demonstrate those technologies, in order to 
eliminate designs that can't be built today.  And lets say that this
portion again funded by the GOV cost about $20 million.

And from here all of these companies went their separate ways, with the
intention of taking all of the market data and the design data to wall
street, and saying "I want to build this vehicle, and here are the numbers
that show %20 ROI, fund me...)


Now many of you think that this is a joke, but I have it on good authority that
just this project is shaping up in the background. It seems that the aerospace
companies have learned that everyone yelling similar but different things
ends up in many programs that do nothing much and get canceled (NASP, NLS,
ALS, DCY?, etc...)  They need to work more in the japaneese, and european
spirit of initial cooperation.  They have also learned that design requirements
that are phony (I.E. some generals idea of what a space vehicle ought to be)
ends up getting chopped up in congress, because it is not a REAL requirement.

Any feedback?

			John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60215
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections.

The following are my thoughts on a meeting that I, Hugh Kelso, and Bob Lilly
had with an aide of Sen. Patty Murrays.  We were there to discuss SSTO, and
commercial space.  This is how it went...



After receiving a packet containing a presentation on the benifits of SSTO,
I called and tried to schedule a meeting with our local Senator (D) Patty
Murray, Washington State.  I started asking for an hour, and when I heard
the gasp on the end of the phone, I quickly backed off to 1/2 an hour.
Later in that conversation, I learned that a standard appointment is 15 minutes.

We got the standard bozo treatment.  That is, we were called back by an aide,
who scheduled a meeting with us, in order to determine that we were not
bozos, and to familiarize himself with the material, and to screen it, to 
make sure that it was appropriate to take the senators time with that material.

Well, I got allocated 1/2 hour with Sen. Murrays aide, and we ended up talking
to him for 45 minutes, with us ending the meeting, and him still listening.
We covered a lot of ground, and only a little tiny bit was DCX specific.  
Most of it was a single stage reusable vehicle primer.  There was another
woman there who took copius quantities of notes on EVERY topic that
we brought up.

But, with Murray being new, we wanted to entrench ourselves as non-corporate
aligned (I.E. not speaking for boeing) local citizens interentested in space.
So, we spent a lot of time covering the benifits of lower cost access to
LEO.  Solar power satellites are a big focus here, so we hit them as becoming 
feasible with lower cost access, and we hit the environmental stand on that.
We hit the tourism angle, and I left a copy of the patric Collins Tourism
paper, with side notes being that everyone who goes into space, and sees the
atmosphere becomes more of an environmentalist, esp. after SEEING the smog
over L.A.  We hit on the benifits of studying bone decalcification (which is 
more pronounced in space, and said that that had POTENTIAL to lead to 
understanding of, and MAYBE a cure for osteoporosis.  We hit the education 
whereby kids get enthused by space, but as they get older and find out that
they havent a hop in hell of actually getting there, they go on to other
fields, with low cost to orbit, the chances they might get there someday 
would provide greater incentive to hit the harder classes needed.

We hit a little of the get nasa out of the operational launch vehicle business
angle.  We hit the lower cost of satellite launches, gps navigation, personal
communicators, tellecommunications, new services, etc...  Jobs provided
in those sectors.

Jobs provided building the thing, balance of trade improvement, etc..
We mentioned that skypix would benifit from lower launch costs.

We left the paper on what technologies needed to be invested in in order
to make this even easier to do.  And he asked questions on this point.

We ended by telling her that we wanted her to be aware that efforts are
proceeding in this area, and that we want to make sure that the
results from these efforts are not lost (much like condor, or majellan),
and most importantly, we asked that she help fund further efforts along
the lines of lowering the cost to LEO.

In the middle we also gave a little speal about the Lunar Resource Data 
Purchase act, and the guy filed it separately, he was VERY interested in it.
He asked some questions about it, and seemed like he wanted to jump on it,
and contact some of the people involved with it, so something may actually
happen immediatly there.

The last two things we did were to make sure that they knew that we
knew a lot of people in the space arena here in town, and that they
could feel free to call us any time with questions, and if we didn't know
the answers, that we would see to it that they questions got to people who
really did know the answers.

Then finally, we asked for an appointment with the senator herself.  He
said that we would get on the list, and he also said that knowing her, this
would be something that she would be very interested in, although they
do have a time problem getting her scheduled, since she is only in the
state 1 week out of 6 these days.

All in all we felt like we did a pretty good job.

			John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60216
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:19:59 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said:

Phil> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

>Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> Pat>
>nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Question is can someone give me 10
>examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity
>in general? It will be interesting to see..

>Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech Pat>
>Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.

>Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.

Phil> Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these?  I also think
Phil> the germans did some work on these in WWII.

The NACA came up with them before World War II.  NASA is directly
descended from the NACA, with space added in.

You'll notice that I didn't mention sweep wings even though the
X-5, tested at what's now Dryden, had them.  We did steal that one
dirctly from the Germans.  The difference is that swept wings don't
change their angle of sweep, sweep wings do.  Perhaps the similarity
of names has caused some confusion?  747s have swept wings, F-111s
have sweep wings.

>Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.

Phil> A lot of this was also done by the military...

After NASA aerodynamicists proposed them and NASA test teams
demonstrated them.  Richard Whitcomb and R.T. Jones, at Langley
Research Center, were giants in the field.

Dryden was involved in the flight testing of winglets and area
ruling (in the 70s and 50s, respectively).  It's true that we
used military aircraft as the testbeds (KC-135 and YF-102) but
that had more to do with availability and need than with military
involvement.  The YF-102 was completely ours and the KC-135 was
bailed to us.  The Air Force, of course, was interested in our
results and supportive of our efforts.

Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No
mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were.
General Dynamics decided to make the F-16 flyby-wire when they saw how
successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)

Phil> Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!  

The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
can't do.


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60217
From: adam@sw.stratus.com (Mark Adam)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu>, ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes:
> The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
> most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
> a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
> approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.
> 

Peanut butter was definitely my favorite. I don't think I ever took a second bite
of the strawberry.

I recently joined Nutri-System and their "Chewy Fudge Bar" is very reminicent of
the chocolate Space Food. This is the only thing I can find that even comes close
the taste. It takes you back... your taste-buds are happy and your
intestines are in knots... joy!

-- 

mark ----------------------------
(adam@paix.sw.stratus.com)	|	My opinions are not those of Stratus.
				|	Hell! I don`t even agree with myself!

	"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60218
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
|Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
|been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
|may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
|make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
|Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
a

What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e?   I assume we know where
and what Galileo is doing within a few meters.   But without the
HGA,  don't we have to have some pretty good ideas, of where to look
before imaging?  If the HGA was working,  they could slew around
in near real time (Less speed of light delay).  But when they were
imaging toutatis????  didn't someone have to get lucky on a guess to
find the first images?   

Also, I imagine S-L 1993e will be mostly a visual image.  so how will
that affect the other imaging missions.  with the LGA,  there is a real
tight allocation of bandwidth.   It may be premature to hope for answers,
but I thought i'd throw it on the floor.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60219
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Plutonium based Nuclear Power plants.

Todays New York TImes just wrote about a pact being negotiated 
between us and the Russians  to develope  High Temperature
Gas Cooled Fission Reactors using Re-Cycled Weapons Grade plutonium
from Warhead stockpiles.   THe fuel will be pelletized in ceramic
for safety,  and then after depletion will be sufficiently
contaminated with by-products to make extraction of the remaining
plutonium hazardous enough to deter re-use.

Apparently the project will be led by General Atomics of San Diego
with funding from the US GOvernment.  THe pilot plant will be built
and operated by the russians.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60220
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)

In article <VNci2B7w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca>, victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca 
(Victor Laking) writes:
> Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
>  
> All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
> drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
> orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.

The sightings were apparently spurious.  There is no planet inside of
the orbit of Mercury.

The idea of Vulcan came from the differences between Mercury's observed
perihelion precession and the value it should have had according to
Newtonian physics.  Leverrier made an extensive set of observations
and calculations during the mid 19th century, and Simon Newcombe later
improved on the observations and re-calculated using Leverrier's system
of equations.  Now Leverrier was one of the co-discoverers of Neptune
and since he had predicted its existence based on anomalies in the orbit
of Uranus his inclination was to believe the same sort of thing was
afoot with Mercury.

But alas, 'twere not so.  Mercury's perihelion precesses at the rate
it does because the space where it resides near the sun is significantly
curved due to the sun's mass.  This explanation had to wait until 1915
and Albert Einstein's synthesis of his earlier theory of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies (commonly called Special Relativity) with Reimanian 
geometry.  The result was the General Theory of Relativity, and one of
it's most noteworthy strengths is that it accounts for the precession
of Mercury's perihelion almost exactly.  (Exactly if you use Newcomb's
numbers rather than Leverrier's.)

Of course not everybody believes Einstein, and that's fine.  But subsequent
efforts to find any planets closer to the sun than Mercury using radar
have been fruitless.

-Bill Gawne

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

Any opinions are my own.  Nothing in this post constitutes an official
statement from any person or organization.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60221
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1993Apr6.125608.7506@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|>>
|>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
|>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
|>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
|>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like
|>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?
|
|I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching
|technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the
|trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of
|separating things first and having a different 'run' for each
|actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull
|(relatively) clean material out the other.  Once the costs,
|technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this
|one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun.  Sure, it's possible
|and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable
|approach? 
|

How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't
do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)

Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology
for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like this.

And does anyone who knows more Particle physics then me,  know if the IPNS
could Prove this technology?

|
|>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
|>built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
|>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
|>technically reasonable.
|

It may also help there is political gridlock on the entire
nuclear technical agenda.  There were big political opponenents to
Fast Breeder Technologies.  WIPP is being fought to death in Courts.
Even if you could make a nuclear incinerator, do you really think
even Deaf SMith County Nevada would accept it?  NIMBY'ism rules
nuclear power concerns.  Only the medical community has been
able to overrule  nuclear  technology opposition. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60222
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

In article <SHAFER.93Apr6094402@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No
>mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were.

Confident, or merely crazed?  That desert sun :-)


>successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
>fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)
>

Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them have a
total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical backup systems?

|
|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
|can't do.
|

What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints?

You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.


pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60223
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

dillon comments that Space Food Sticks may have bad digestive properties.

I don't think so.  I think  most NASA food products were designed to
be low fiber 'zero-residue' products so as to minimize the difficulties
of waste disposal.  I'd doubt they'd deploy anything that caused whole sale
GI distress.  There aren't enough plastic baggies in the world for
a bad case of GI disease.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60224
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: The Area Rule



I am sure  Mary or Henry can describe this more aptly then me.
But here is how i understand it.

At Speed,  Near supersonic.  The wind behaves like a fluid pipe.
It becomes incompressible.  So wind has to bend away from the
wing edges.   AS the wing thickens,  the more the pipes bend.

If they have no place to go,  they begin to stall,  and force
compression, stealing power from the vehicle (High Drag).

If you squeeze the fuselage,  so that these pipes  have aplace to bend
into,  then drag is reduced.   

Essentially,  teh cross sectional area of the aircraft shoulf
remain constant for all areas of the fuselage.  That is where the wings are
subtract, teh cross sectional area of the wings from the fuselage.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60225
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

In <1993Apr5.191011.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??
>Why do the Martian Landing thing..  Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
>much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

You missed something.  I think it takes off vertically and is intended
to land the same way.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60226
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In <1pq7rj$q2u@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|
>|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
>|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to
>|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain
>|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk
>|enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they
>|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the
>|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.


>Fred.

>	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year
>contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be
>damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year
>contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much
>as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough
>Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.

I don't have to "try reading a bit", Pat.  I *work* as a government
contractor and know what the rules are like.  Yes, they sign some
(damned few -- which is why everyone is always having to go to
Washington to see about next week's funding) multi-year contracts;
they also aren't willing to include sufficient cancellation penalties
when they *do* decide to cut the multi-year contract and not pay on it
(which can happen arbitrarily at any time, no matter what previous
plans were) to make the risk acceptable of something like putting up a
private space station with the government as the expected prime
occupant.

I'd like a source for that statement about "the reason they aren't
cutting defense spending as much as they would like"; I just don't buy
it. The other thing I find a bit 'funny' about your posting, Pat, is
that several other people answered the question pretty much the same
way I did; mine is the one you comment (and incorrectly, I think) on.
I think that says a lot.  You and Tommy should move in together.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60227
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1psfan$pj0@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
>In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
>|been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
>|may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
>|make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
>|Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
>a
> 
>What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e?   

If Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e is in Jovian orbit, and if the comet
is still hanging around when Galileo arrives, then I'm sure it will
be added to the list of targets.  We'll have by then over two years
of Earth-based observations to help narrow down the positions of the
pieces of the comet. It probably won't be too much different than
what was done with Gaspra.

>But when they were
>imaging toutatis?

Galileo did not image Toutatis.  That came from Earth-based radar.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60228
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
>that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
>Any comments?

Sure.  Why keep using oil?  A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be
cleaner and more efficient in the long run.  The laws of supply and demand
should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of
shortage.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60229
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance

NASA Headquarters distributed the following press
release today (4/6). I've typed it in verbatim, for you
folks to chew over. Many of the topics recently
discussed on sci.space are covered in this.

Gibbons Outlines Space Station Redesign Guidance

Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of
the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space
Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to
the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of
the space station.

A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7
billion and a high option of $9 billion will be
considered by the committee. Each option would cover
the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for
development, operations, utilization, Shuttle
integration, facilities, research operations support,
transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the
available funds.

Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within
the NASA budget for the President's new technology
investment. As a result, station options above $7
billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in
the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space
station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion
in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years.

Gibbons presented the information at an organizational
session of the advisory committee. Generally, the
members-designate focused upon administrative topics
and used the session to get acquainted. They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation
on the process the Station Redesign Team is following
to develop options for the advisory committee to
consider.

Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese, and
Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give
"full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the
course of the space station redesign process.

To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate
in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting
basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their
expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the
possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and
systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to
benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants
in assessing Russian systems and technology. The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop
options for reducing station costs while preserving key
research and exploration capabilities. Careful
integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in
achieving that goal.

Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is
committed to the redesigned space station and to making
every effort to preserve the science, the technology
and the jobs that the space station program represents.
However, he also is committed to a space station that
is well managed and one that does not consume the
national resources which should be used to invest in
the future of this industry and this nation."

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-
West Space Science Center at the University of Maryland
under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60230
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

On 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

Pat> In article <SHAFER.93Apr6094402@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Pat> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
>fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)
>

Pat> Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them
Pat> have a total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical
Pat> backup systems?

All reaction-controlled aircraft are fly-by-wire, at least the RCS part
is.  On the X-15 the aerodynamic control surfaces (elevator, rudder, etc)
were conventionally controlled (pushrods and cables) but the RCS jets
were fly-by-wire.

|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
|can't do.  

Pat> What do you mean?  Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh
Pat> joints?

Navy aircraft have folding or sweeping wings, in order to save space
on the hangar deck.  The F-14 wings sweep, all the rest fold the
wingtips up at a joint.

Air Force planes don't have folding wings, since the Air Force has
lots of room.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60231
From: dragon@access.digex.com (Covert C Beach)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93

In article <1pcgaa$do1@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
>to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
>justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
>probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
>things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.

I attended a colloquium at Goddard last fall where the head of the 
operations section of NASA was talking about what future missions
were going to be funded.  I don't remember his name or title off hand
and I have discarded the colloquia announcement. In any case, he was 
asked about that very matter: "Why can't we spend a few million more
to keep instruments that we already have in place going?"

His responce was that there are only so many $ available to him and
the lead time on an instrument like a COBE, Magellan, Hubble, etc
is 5-10 years minumum.  If he spent all that could be spent on using
current instruments in the current budget enviroment he would have
very little to nothing for future projects.  If he did that, sure
in the short run the science would be wonderful and he would be popular,
however starting a few years after he had retired he would become
one of the greatest villans ever seen in the space community for not
funding the early stages of the next generation of instruments.  Just
as he had benefited from his predicessor's funding choices, he owed it
to whoever his sucessor would eventually be to keep developing new
missions, even at the expense of cutting off some instruments before
the last drop of possible science has been wrung out of them.


-- 
Covert C Beach
dragon@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60232
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Economics


>If all the ecomomists in the world were laid end to end . . .

>Punchline #1: they would all point in different directions.

>Punchline #2: they wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Punchline #3: it would be a good idea just to leave them there.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60233
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign

"Space Station Redesign Leader Says Cost Goal May Be
Impossible"

Today (4/6) the Washington Post ran an article with the
headline shown above. The article starts with "A leader
of the NASA team in charge of redesigning the planned
space station said yesterday the job is tough and may
be impossible." O'Connor is quoted saying whether it is
possible to cut costs that much and still provide for
meaningful research "is a real question for me."
O'Connor said "everything is fair game," including
"dropping or curtailing existing contracts with the
aerospace industry, chopping management of the space
station program at some NASA facilities around the
country, working closely with the Russian space station
Mir, and using unmanned Titan rockets to supplement the
manned space shuttle fleet."

O'Connor says his team has reviewed 30 design options
so far, and they are sorting the serious candidates
into three categories based on cost.

The Post says O'Connor described the design derived
from the current SSF as a high cost option (I believe
Kathy Sawyer, the Post writer, got confused here. I
listened in on part of O'Connor's briefing to the press
on Monday, and in one part of the briefing O'Connor
talked about how the White House wants three options,
sorted by cost [low, medium, and high]. In another part
of the briefing, he discussed the three teams he has
formed to look at three options [SSF derivative @ LaRC,
modular buildup with Bus-1 @ MSFC, and Single Launch
Core ["wingless Orbiter"] @ JSC. Later, in response to
a reporters question, I thought I heard O'Connor say
the option based on a SSF redesign was a "moderate"
cost option, in between low & high cost options. Not
the "high cost" option as Sawyer wrote).

The article goes on to describe the other two options
as "one features modules that could gradually be fitted
together in orbit, similar to the Russian Mir. The
other is a core facility that could be deposited in
orbit in a single launch, like Skylab. That option
would use existing hardware from the space shuttle -
the fuselage, for example, in its basic structure."

The last sentence in the article contradicts the title
& the first paragraph. The sentence reads "He
[O'Connor] said a streamlined version of the planned
space station Freedom is still possible within the
administration's budget guidelines."


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60234
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named

The following press release was distributed April 1 by
NASA Headquarters.

Space Station Redesign Advisory Members Named

Along with Dr. Charles M. Vest, recently named by Vice President
Albert Gore to head the advisory committee on the redesign of the
Space Station, NASA has announced the names of representatives
from government and industry and academic experts from across the
country to participate in an independent review of the redesign
options being developed by NASA.

"I am extremely honored to have been selected to lead this
important review panel. America's future in science and
technology and as a world leader in space demands our utmost
attention and care," said Vest. "We have assembled a diverse
panel of experts that, I believe, will bring the appropriate
measures of insight, integrity and objectivity to this critical
task."

The advisory committee is charged with independently assessing
various redesign options of the space station presented by NASA's
redesign team, and proposing recommendations to improve
efficiency and effectiveness of the space station program. Space
station international partners also are being asked to 
participate and will be named at a later date. The advisory
committee will submit its recommendations in June.

Advisory committee members named today include:

Dr. Charles Vest              Dr. Bobby Alford
President, MIT                Executive VP & Dean of Medicine
                              Baylor College of Medicine

Mr. Jay Chabrow               Dr. Paul Chu
President, JMR Associates     Director, Texas Center for
                              Superconductivity
                              University of Houston

Dr. Ed Crawley                Dr. John Fabian
Prof of Aero & Astro          President & CEO
MIT                           ANSER

Maj. Gen. James Fain          Dr. Edward Fort
Deputy Chief of Staff for     Chancellor
Requirements; Headquarters    North Carolina AT&T
USAF Materials Command        State University

Dr. Mary Good                 Mr. Frederick Hauck
Senior VP of Technology       President, International Technical
Allied Signal, Inc.           Underwriters

Dr. Lou Lanzerotti            Mr. William Lilly
Chair, Space Sciences         National Academy of Public
Board, National Research      Administration
Council

Mr. Duane McRuer              Dr. Brad Parkinson
President Systems Technology  Prof of Astro & Aero
                              Stanford University

Dr. Robert Seamans            Dr. Lee Silver
Former NASA Deputy Admin.     W.M. Keck Foundation Professor
                              for Resource Geology
                              California Institute of
                              Technology

Dr. Albert "Bud" Wheelon
Retired CEO
Hughes Aircraft


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60235
From: freed@nss.org (Bev Freed)
Subject: FAQs

I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.
 


--  
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: freed@nss.org

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60236
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: FAQs

In article <10505.2BBCB8C3@nss.org>, freed@nss.org (Bev Freed) writes:
>I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly
>.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.

Or just stick 'em on sci.space.news every 28-30 days? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60237
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
> that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
> Any comments?

They exist.  Even photosynthetic varieties.  Not economical at this
time, though.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60238
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )

In article <1pfiuh$64e@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better
>technology then we have.  AS opposed to BWR/PWRs  have they really
>considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs.

The Japanese are still on the learning curve as far as nuclear power goes.
This means that unlike the Germans (who do great things all by themselves)
the Japanese tie up with foreign companies. The major one is Mitsubishi
(who else) who have a sharing agreement with GE I think. No chance of a
new design.

>Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design
>difficulties.  Or the inherently safe types.

Sodium has *lots* of chemical problems. Like it eats stainless steel. Very
slowly but it gets there in the end. Not what I call a desired property.
As for design difficulties, what does sodium do there? It is a bitch and
it is only its chemical properties (flwed though they are) that means it
gets used. Two loops? That's not a design problem? Isolation from air and
water? That doesn't cause design problems? In comparison BWR's a dream rides!

>PWR's work real good,  but they need lots of steel,  and they are highly
>complex systems.  Simplicity is a virtue.

Don't get none of that in a Liquid Sodium Breeder! More steel, more complexity.

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60239
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )

In article <1pfj8k$6ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <1993Mar31.161814.11683@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they
>>would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power.

>Of course,  Given they export 50 % of the GNP,  What do they do.

Well they don't export anywhere near 50% of their GNP. Mexico's perhaps
but not their own. They actually export around the 9-10% mark. Similar
to most developed countries actually. Australia exports a larger share
of GNP as does the United States (14% I think off hand. Always likely to
be out by a factor of 12 or more though) This would be immediately obvious
if you thought about it.

>Anything serious enough to disrupt the sea lanes for oil will
>also hose their export routes.

It is their import routes that count. They can do without exports but
they couldn't live without imports for any longer than six months if that.

>Given they import everything,  oil is just one more critical commodity.

Too true! But one that is unstable and hence a source of serious worry.

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60240
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)

In article <1pfkf5$7ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts.
>THey may want to start a galactic empire:-)   Napoleon
>complex you know.  Genghis Khan was a little guy too.  I'd bet
>Julius caesar never broke 5'1".

I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall
for a Roman. He did go on record as favouring small soldiers though.
Thought they were tougher and had more guts. He was probably right
if you think about it. As for Napoleon remember that the French
avergae was just about 5 feet and that height is relative! Did he
really have a complex?

ObSpace :  We have all seen the burning candle from High School that goes
out and relights. If there is a large hot body placed in space but in an
atmosphere, exactly how does it heat the surroundings? Diffusion only?

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60241
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: NASA "Wraps"

In the April edition of "One Small Step for a Space Activist",
Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger write:
  "Another problem is what are called 'wraps' (or sometimes
   the 'center tax'). When work for a large program like
   Freedom or Shuttle is performed at a NASA center, the
   center skims off a portion which goes into what amounts
   to a slush fund. This money is used to fund work the
   center manager wants to fund. This sum is estimated to
   be over a third of the funds allocated. Think about
   that: Of the $30 billion cost of Freedom, fully $10
   billion won't be spent on anything having anything
   to do with Space Stations! Now, maybe that $10 billion
   was wisely spent (and maybe it wasn't), but the work done
   with it should stand on its own merits, not distorting
   the cost of other projects. Congress has no idea of the
   existense of these wraps; Congress has never heard the
   term 'center tax'. They look at the Station they are
   getting and the price they are paying and note that
   it doesn't add up. They wonder this blissfully unaware
   that a third of the money is going for something else."

My dear friends, your mixing fact and fiction here. A couple
of weeks ago, when I first read this in your posting, I
talked with one of the cost experts here in Space Station
at Headquarters [if you wondering why I didn't post a
response immediately, I do have a real job I'm supposed
to be doing here at Headquarters, & digging up old 20 kHz
data & looking into Sherzer/Kyger claims rates pretty low
on the totem pole of priority. Also, I spent last weekend
in Kansas City, at the National Science Teachers 
Association conference, extolling the virtues of SSF
to 15,000 science teachers.]

First off, yes, the concept of 'center tax', or 'wrap' does
exist. If I recall the numbers correctly, the total 'tax'
for the SSF program for this fiscal year is around $40 Million.
This was computed by adding up the WP-1, WP-2, and WP-4
center 'taxes'. With the SSF budget for this fiscal year at
$2.2 Billion, my calculater says the tax percentage is
04/2.2 = 1.8%

Over the life of the SSF program, using your figure of $30
billion for the cost of SSF, a tax at a 1.8% rate comes to
$540 million. This is alot less than $10 billion, but I
will concede it's still an appreciable amount of pocket
change.

I should note that your estimate of the tax rate at 1/3 could
be close to the actual rate. The tax is only charged on funds
that are spent at the center (kind of like McDonalds at some
states, where you do have to pay sales tax if you eat
the food at the restaurant, but you don't if you get it
take-out). For example, at WP-4, the vast bulk of the funds
we receive go to the Rocketdyne Contract, and are *NOT*
subject to the center tax (I don't have the numbers in
front of me, but I'd guess at least 95% of the WP-4 funds
go to Rocketdyne). So, you could be right about a tax
rate of 1/3, but it's only applied to funds spent at the
center, and not to the prime contracts.

This leads to the obvious question "What is the government
doing with SSF funds that don't go to the prime contractors?
(i.e. ok, WP-4 gets a slice of the $30 billion pie. A
big portion of this slice goes to Rocketdyne. What happens
to the balance of the funds, which aren't eaten
up by the center tax?)"

At WP-4, we call these funds we spend in-house supporting
development funds (as they are supporting the development
work done by Rocketdyne). We have used these funds to
setup our own testbed, to checkout the electrical
power system architecture. Our testbed has a real life
solar array field (left over from solar cell research
research a few years back), with lead-acid car batteries
(to simulate the Nickel-Hydrogen batteries on SSF), DC
switchgear, DC-DC converter units, and simulated
loads. Data from the testbed was used in a recent
change evaluation involving concerns about the stability
of the power system.

We have also used the supporting development money to
purchase Nickel Hydrogen batteries, which are on life
testing at both Lewis and the Crane Naval facility in
Indiana. As a side point, 6 of the battery cells on
test recently hit the four year life test milestone.
38 cells have completed 18,552 to 23,405 cycles (the
on-orbit batteries go through 5,840 cycles per year).

As a final example, my 'home' division at Lewis used
the supporting development funds to purchase personal
computers and work stations, for performing system
analyses (like modeling of the performance of the
electrical power system, availability calculations
using a Monte-Carlo simulation, setting up a 
database with information on weight of the power
system elements).

Finally, the money raised by the 'tax' does not all
go into a 'slush fund.' At Lewis, the director
does control a small discretionary fund. Each year,
any individual at Lewis can submit a proposal to
the director to get money from this fund to look
at pretty much anything within the Lewis Charter.

Most of the tax, however, goes to fund the 'general'
services at the Center, like the library, the 
central computer services division, the Contractor 
who removes the snow, etc. Thus, it is rather
difficult to determine what percentage of the
SSF budget doesn't go for SSF activities. To get
an accurate figure, you would have to take
the annual expenditure for the library (for example),
and then divide by the amount of the library funds
used to support SSF (which would be hard to
compute by itself - how would you figure out
what percentage of the bill for Aviation Week for
1 year is 'billable' to SSF, would you base it on
the person-hours SSF employees spend reading AV-week
versus the rest of the center personnel). You would
then have to compare this estimate of the SSF
portion of the library expense with the portion of
the tax that goes to support the library. Who knows,
maybe SSF overpays on the tax to run the library, but
we underpay for snow removal? Talk about
a burecratic nightmare!

My last point is that I can't believe your claim that
Congress has never heard of the term 'center tax.'
Unfortunately, all of the NASA testimony before
Congress isn't on a computer, so I can't do a simple
word search someplace to prove you wrong. But surely,
in some GAO audit somewhere, these NASA cost methods
were documented for Congress?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60242
From: buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke)
Subject: DC-X Rollout Report


McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

        HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- On a picture-perfect Southern
California day, McDonnell Douglas rolled out its DC-X rocket ship last
Saturday.  The company hopes this single-stage rocket technology
demonstrator will be the first step towards a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)
rocket ship.

        The white conical vehicle was scheduled to go to the White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico this week.  Flight tests will start in
mid-June.

        Although there wasn't a cloud in the noonday sky, the forecast for
SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for
a sub-orbital DC-XA, SDIO is passing a tin cup among its sister government
agencies.

        SDIO originally funded SSTO research as a way to cut the costs for
orbital deployments of space-based sensors and weapns.  However, recent
changes in SDI's political marching orders and budget cuts have made SSTO
less of a priority.  Today, the agency is more interested in using DC-X as
a step towards a low-cost, reusable sounding rocket.

        SDIO has already done 50 briefings to other government agencies,
said Col.  Simon "Pete" Worden, SDIO's deputy for technology.  But Worden
declined to say how much the agencies would have to pony up for the
program. "I didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I
have available to spend," he quipped at a press conference at McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics headquarters.

        While SDIO has lowered its sights on the program's orbital
objective, agency officials hail the DC-X as an example of the "better,
faster, cheaper" approach to hardware development.  The agency believes
this philosophy can produce breakthroughs that "leapfrog" ahead of
evolutionary technology developments.

        Worden said the DC-X illustrates how a "build a little, test a
little" approach can produce results on time and within budget.  He said
the program -- which went from concept to hardware in around 18 months --
showed how today's engineers could move beyond the "miracles of our
parents' time."

        "The key is management," Worden said. "SDIO had a very light hand
on this project.  We had only one overworked major, Jess Sponable."

        Although the next phase may involve more agencies, Worden said
lean management and a sense of government-industry partnership will be
crucial. "It's essential we do not end up with a large management
structure where the price goes up exponentially."

        SDIO's approach also won praise from two California members of the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "This is the direction
we're going to have to go," said Rep.  George Brown, the committee's
Democratic chairman. "Programs that stretch aout 10 to 15 years aren't
sustainable....NASA hasn't learned it yet.  SDIO has."

        Rep.  Dana Rohrbacher, Brown's Republican colleague, went further.
Joking that "a shrimp is a fish designed by a NASA design team,"
Rohrbacher doubted that the program ever would have been completed if it
were left to the civil space agency.

        Rohrbacher, whose Orange County district includes McDonnell
Douglas, also criticized NASA-Air Force work on conventional, multi-staged
rockets as placing new casings around old missile technology. "Let's not
build fancy ammunition with capsules on top.  Let's build a spaceship!"

         Although Rohrbacher praised SDIO's sponsorship, he said the
private sector needs to take the lead in developing SSTO technology.

        McDonnell Douglas, which faces very uncertain prospects with its
C-17 transport and Space Station Freedom programs, were more cautious
about a large private secotro commitment. "On very large ventures,
companies put in seed money," said Charles Ordahl, McDonnell Douglas'
senior vice president for space systems. "You need strong government
investments."

        While the government and industry continue to differ on funding
for the DC-XA, they agree on continuing an incremental approach to
development.  Citing corporate history, they liken the process to Douglas
Aircraft's DC aircraft.  Just as two earlier aircraft paved the way for
the DC-3 transport, a gradual evolution in single-stage rocketry could
eventually lead to an orbital Delta Clipper (DC-1).

        Flight tests this summer at White Sands will "expand the envelope"
of performance, with successive tests increasing speed and altitude.  The
first tests will reach 600 feet and demonstrate hovering, verticle
take-off and landing.  The second series will send the unmanned DC-X up to
5,000 feet.  The third and final series will take the craft up to 20,000
feet.

        Maneuvers will become more complex on third phase.  The final
tests will include a "pitch-over" manever that rotates the vehicle back
into a bottom-down configuration for a soft, four-legged landing.

        The flight test series will be supervised by Charles "Pete"
Conrad, who performed similar maneuvers on the Apollo 12 moon landing.
Now a McDonnell Douglas vice president, Conrad paised the vehicles
aircraft-like approach to operations.  Features include automated
check-out and access panels for easy maintainance.

        If the program moves to the next stage, engine technology will
become a key consideration.  This engine would have more thrust than the
Pratt & Whitney RL10A-5 engines used on the DC-X.  Each motor uses liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants to generate up to 14,760 pounds of
thrust

        Based on the engine used in Centaur upper stages, the A-5 model
has a thrust champer designed for sea level operation and three-to-on
throttling capability.  It also is designed for repeat firings and rapid
turnaround.

        Worden said future single-stage rockets could employ
tri-propellant engine technology developed in the former Soviet Union.
The resulting engines could burn a dense hydrocarbon fuel at takeoff and
then switch to liquid hydrogen at higher altitudes.

        The mechanism for the teaming may already be in place.  Pratt has
a technology agreement with NPO Energomash, the design bureau responsible
for the tri-propellant and Energia cryogenic engines.



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60243
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off


In article <1psgs1$so4@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>|
>|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
>|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
>|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
>|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
>|can't do.
>|
>
>What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints?
>
>You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.

No, they fold on the dotted line.  Look at pictures of carriers with loads of
a/c on the deck, wings all neatly folded.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60244
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1psg95$ree@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

[On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...]

>How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't
>do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)

>Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology
>for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like
>this.

I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than
everyone else, Pat.  Just a *few* corrections:

1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable
to GO LOOK AT.

2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of
the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply
doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to
become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility
(sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a
down-side that was too expensive to overcome).

I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault
density for even you, Pat.



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60245
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope


> flight tests are generally carefully coreographed and just what 
> is going to be  'pushed' and how
> far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans,
> such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed
> taxi tests).

.. and Chuck Yeager earlier flights with the X-1...


 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60246
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Commercial point of view

Original to: szabo@techbook.com
G'day szabo@techbook.com

29 Mar 93 07:28, szabo@techbook.com wrote to All:

 sc> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 sc> Here are some longer-term markets to consider:

Here are some more:

* Terrestrial illumination from orbiting mirrors.

* World enviroment and disaster monitering system. (the Japanese have
already developed a plan for this, called WEDOS) Although this may be more
of a "public good".

* Space tourism.

* Energy relay satellites

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-6797  3:713/6
(3:713/635)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60247
From: bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs)
Subject: Re: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.

In article <1993Apr5.184527.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..
>
>
>Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
>confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
>earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??
>
Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above:
 

1.  Politics
2.  Traditions
3.  Congress
4.  Beauracrats


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60248
From: buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke)
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

To: spacenews@austen.rand.org, cti@austen.rand.org
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT
From: Richard Buenneke <buenneke@austen.rand.org>

4/06/93:  GIBBONS OUTLINES SPACE STATION REDESIGN GUIDANCE

NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
April 6, 1993

RELEASE:  93-64

        Dr.  John H.  Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the
Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance
to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space
station.

        A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a
high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee.  Each
option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development,
operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research
operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds.

        Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA
budget for the President's new technology investment.  As a result,
station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting
reductions in the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space station
option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA
budget over the next 5 years.

        Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of
the advisory committee.  Generally, the members-designate focused upon
administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted.  They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the
Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory
committee to consider.

        Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians -- have
decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of
Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process.

        To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the
redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign
team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR
and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems.
The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of
the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology.  The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing
station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilitiaes.
Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving
that goal.

        Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the
redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the
science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program
represents.  However, he also is committed to a space station that is well
managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should
be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation."

        NASA Administrator Daniel S.  Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-West Space Science
Center at the University of Maryland under the leadership of Roald
Sagdeev.

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60249
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Sr-71 in propoganda films?

In article <1993Apr5.220610.1532@sequent.com>, bigfoot@sequent.com (Gregory Smith) writes:
|> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> 
|> >In <1phv98$jbk@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >>THe SR-71 stopped being a real secret by the mid 70's.
|> >>I had a friend in high school who had a poster with it's picture.
|> 
|> >It was known well before that.  I built a model of it sometime in the
|> >mid 60's, billed as YF-12A/SR-71.  The model was based on YF-12A specs
|> >and had a big radar in the nose and 8 AAMs in closed bays on the
|> >underside of the fuselage.  The description, even then, read "speeds
|> >in excess of Mach 3 at altitudes exceeding 80,000 feet."
|> 
|> L.B.J. publically announced the existance of the Blackbird program
|> in 1964.


He's also the one who dubbed it the SR-71 - it was the RS-71 until LBJ
mippselled (sic) it.

FWIW,

Doug Page

***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and don't necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60250
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5

In article <C50orq.7G0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gwg33762@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Garret W. Gengler) writes...
>In sci.space you write:
> 
>>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or 
>>128.183.104.16, or call (310)286-5690.  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan, 
>>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments.
> 
>Howdy.  Thanks for the info.
> 
>I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work.
>I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login
>and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for
>environet was "envnet".  
> 
>Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try?
> 
>Thanks,
>Garret
> 
> 
The home office number for ENVIRONET is (301) 286-5690 (note area
code change).  A friend of mine used to use it to get LDEF data, but
he had to apply for a login name and password.  I have a call in for
more info, which I hope to get in the morning.

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60251
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Quaint US Archaisms

In article <C512wC.B0M.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.170157.24251@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> 
<stuff deleted>
|> Of course the units of force have the same names as those of weight,
|> but in order to use them you need to keep useful constants like the
|> omnipresent 32.???? ft/sec^2 around.
|> 
|> Maybe you'd like to go over again how this system is _so_ natural and
|> _so_ easy to use, Gary? While you're at it, you can figure out for us
|> the weight of 17 barrels and a quart of foo (density 17lb 2 3/4 oz per
|> cubic foot) on the moon (gravity 5 ft 7 3/32 in/sec^2). Let's face it,
|> even the imperial system uses a basically metric way of relating
|> quantities (i.e. that would be written as 5.59 ft/sec^2); the only
|> thing you're hanging on to is the right to express the same quantity
|> as 1731 inches, 144.25 feet, 48.0833 yards or 2.186 chains. What
|> everyone else is saying is _why_ do you want to do that?
|> 
|> Any apparent remaining complexity in the SI system is due to the
|> multiplicity of the aforesaid prefixes. In fact what's going on (and
|> the fundamental difference between SI and imperial) is that you have
|> exactly one unit of each type, and all values of that type are
|> expressed as some multiple of the unit.

You mean like: seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years. . .  :-)

Remember,  the Fahrenheit temperature scale is also a centigrade scale.  Some
revisionists tell the history something like this:  The coldest point in a
particular Russian winter was marked on the thermometer as was the body
temperature of a volunteer (turns out he was sick, but you can't win 'em all).
Then the space in between the marks on the thermometer was then divided into
hundredths.
								:-)

FWIW,

Doug Page


***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer (or any other sane person, fot that matter).            ***

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60252
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Fred and Tom, ad naseum

>>Nick sez;
I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   [...]

>>Fred replies;
Translation:  It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
to Which You MUST Subscribe...

>Tom sez;
Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
degree.  If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.

>Fred again;
You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you?
  [not incredibly clear explanation of complaints...something between
   feelings regarding Nick's method, and judgments about his meaning]

T
>>Maybe I'd get it if you said what the complaints are about, rather than
>>doing the same things that you mean to complain about.  When you trash
>>people, how am I supposed to read that as 'trashing people is bad'?

F
>Gee, funny that you get it now, then?  Deliberate obtuseness, perhaps?

*** Fred's issue #1;  Nick's alleged trashing of others ***

I only got it when you stopped trashing, and made your point patently,
instead of 'allegorically'.  That was my point all along, Fred.

>>>>Not only
>>>>do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas
>>>>on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just
>>>>baiting, not even part of a debate.

>>>I have yet to see Nick enter into anything remotely resembling "a
>>>debate".  I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The
>>>One True Szabo Plan; I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy
>>>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight
>>>Nick; I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the
>>>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo.  But debate?  BWAAaaahhhaaaa.

>>I'm glad you can laugh, since your ratio of debate/insult is about the same.

>Not even close, Tommy, and generally only when I'm dealing with
>someone like Nick.

I see we are dealing with a problem in a conflict of interpretations, not
least of which is your belief that only you can adequately judge what is
and is not debate.  Suffice to say that I disagree with you on that last
point.  Why don't you take a poll, Fred, if you want some psuedo-objective
point-of-view?

And, as usual, you defend your insults with "he started it."  "Yeah, I
took some of his research and called it my own, but he started it."  "So
what if I stole his car, he stole my lawnmower first."  Besides that, I
think it's still open to interpretation whether Nick actually did start it.
So your defense, besides being lame, and contradicting the first part of
the sentence in which it occurs, may not even apply anyway.

Your defense reminds me of the guy that broke the borrowed tool:  "I
never borrowed it, I already gave it back, and it was broken when you
gave it to me."  Make up yer mind, Fred!

>>>>I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space-
>>>>based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the
>>>>reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of
>>>>the person with a divergent opinion.

>>>Who said I think they should be, Tommy?  Show me a note where I said
>>>that and I'll eat this terminal.    ****See below, Fred****

>>Fred, I cocluded that you did, since you took issue with it.  The fact
>>that my conclusion was incorrect, i.e. that you were taking issue with
>>something different, is evidence that your communication style is
>>confusing.

>Or evidence that your reading and comprehension style are inadequate.

First, I try to address what I think you meant, for which I am rewarded
with a denial of sorts, and a smart remark.  Then, I point out that I am
not clear what you did mean, rather than risking your childish ire, wrongly
interpreting you a second time, and I'm stupid for it.  I just can't win,
can I, Fred?  You've got a great point here somewhere, it's just that
between stupid people that you must insult, and your jealous guarding of
your valuable opinions, you never actually get around to making it.

>Please quote the 'it' I took issue with.  I believe you will see (if
>you look) that what I was and am taking issue with is Mr Szabo's idea
>that the manned program should be scrapped until such time as his
>toaster-based infrastructure is finished.  All Hail the Szabo Plan!

*** Fred issue #2;  Nick's alleged meaning ***

Too bad the plan only exists in your mind, instead of Nick's, or you
would have a really good point.  Instead you have provided a good reason
to ignore your insults, since they are based on incorrect interpretations
that you have made about others.  Forgive me for giving your insults more
meaning than they ever should have had.

My reading of what Nick actually said is that "people aren't required in
all parts of all space processes", so your taking issue with his opinions
regarding people in the space program, I read as "People are required in
all parts of all space processes."  So, help me out, here, Fred, since I'm
so patently stupid.  Did you read Nick wrong?  Or are you going to eat
your terminal now?  If the latter, I sure hope it's one of those Cheeto and
string models that all the computer mags have been raving about :-)

The point is, _I_ am not stupid because of _your_ incorrect assumption.  I'd
only be stupid if I insulted you for having made it.  But, alas, that's your
job, Fred.

And, finally, your style is confusing, since you tried to make two points,
simultaneously, with an allegory/insult.  Sadly, one point addressed a 'plan'
that only existed in your mind, and the other took issue with behaviors that
you do as much as anyone.

>More deliberate lack of understanding, Tommy?

No, no, I finally got it.  You don't like the plan that Nick's posts made
you imagine.  And you don't like Nick's obnoxious behavior, even though
it's no worse than your own.  Thanks for taking the time with someone as
dense as myself.

>>>>If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that.  The way you
>>>>bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of.

>>>No, Tommy, the 'bait' is that which elicits the response.  *NICK*
>>>'baits'; I just flame him for being an obnoxious fool.

>>I don't really care who started it.  I read this list to get information
>>and other's views on the issues to which it was dedicated, not to be
>>your Mom (He started it!  No, he did!) or to hear about why Nick is a very
>>bad guy.  If you think flaming is bad, stop flaming, or at least get to
>>the point in the first post, instead of explaining yourself all the time.

>That's nice, Tommy.  When you pay me to post to the net you can
>complain about not getting your money's worth.  Perhaps if you weren't
>(deliberately?) too thick to get the point the first time I wouldn't
>have to waste time "explaining [myself] all the time"?

Of course, Socrates.  How could it be otherwise?

>I think it's neat how all this criticism from you started after your
>'fatherly' admonitions to me about how such things should be handled
>outside Usenet were somewhat rebuffed.  Being a little hypocritical,
>Tommy (to go with the immaturity)?  Or is this just the pique of a
>net.ghod wannabe who got turned down by someone he *thought* was new
>(and hence could be 'instructed' -- Tommy, I saw you come on the net).

Who cares who came on the net first?  If you do, consider that you saw
me come on after a brief haitus, before which I was on for about 2 years.
If you had seen me on the net first, you'd remember when Nick and I went
down exactly the same road regarding rude, unneccesary behavior.  It's
just amazing to me that you continue to take issue with behavior that's
no worse than your own.

Let's see here, my complaints about your obnoxious behavior are hypocritical,
while your flames against people you decide are flamers isn't, and my
complaints about your name-calling are immature, while your name-calling
isn't.  Yeah, right.  Maybe if you called me some more names, I might
see it better, Fred.

"Net.ghod wannabe"?  Naturally, Fred, you've correctly interpreted my
motivations, when yours are impossible to judge from your actions (as
your insulting of people that try, proves).  I didn't really care about
people that fill the net with personal garbage, what I really wanted was to
impress everyone.  I only put my complaints with your behavior on private
mail, not because it belongs there, but because I thought you were such a
jerk that you'd bring it back to the Net, playing right into my hands.
Alas, I had no idea what an intellectual master you were, turning tables and
bringing the history of these posts to the net, for the noble and valuable
purpose of embarassing me.  Whether I should feel stupid because I tried
to make suggestions to such a superior intellect, or becuase I tried to
communicate like an adult with a self-righteous ass, still isn't clear.

Well, Fred, you exposed me.  Now I'll never be able to get a(nother) job
with NASA, since they all know that I'm stupider than Fred McCall.  Well,
I just hope you're happy.  Please leave me alone, now.  I just don't
have the heart to attempt keeping up with one so far above me.  Maybe Nick
or Pat can approach your high standards, but I'm dropping it now.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60253
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: DC-X Rollout Report

In article <C532v3.Ftn.1@cs.cmu.edu> buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke) writes:

   McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

 ...


   SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
   million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
   follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for

This is a little peculiar way of putting it, SDIO's budget this year
was, what, $3-4 billion? They _could_ fund all of the DC development
out of one years budget - of course they do have other irons in the
fire ;-) and launcher development is not their primary purpose, but
the DC development could as easily be paid for by diverting that money
as by diverting the comparable STS ops budget...

- oh, and before the flames start. I applaud the SDIO for funding DC-X
devlopment and I hope it works, and, no, launcher development is not
NASAs primary goal either, IMHO they are supposed to provide the
enabling technology research for others to do launcher development,
and secondarily operate such launchers as they require - but that's
just me.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60770
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus

> Another legend with the name Vulcan was the planet, much like Earth,
> in the same orbit

There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its 
name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the 
Sun so it could never be visible from Earth. Turns out that that planet 
was the exact mirror image of Earth and all its inhabitants looked like 
the Earthings with the difference that their organs was in the opposite 
side like the heart was in the right side instead in the left and they 
would shake hands with the left hand and so on...

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60771
From: tuinstra@signal.ece.clarkson.edu.soe (Dwight Tuinstra)
Subject: Re: Clementine name

In article F00001@permanet.org, Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>Please go just one step further:
>How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?
>

Could be the (folk?) song "Clementine".  If memory serves, part of it goes:

   In a cavern, by a canyon,
   Excavating for a mine,
   Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
   and his daughter, Clementine.

Anyone who watched Huckleberry Hound can sing you the chorus :-) 
Is there a story/real person behind the song?

+========================================================================+
|  dwight tuinstra             best:  tuinstra@sandman.ece.clarkson.edu  |
|                         tolerable:  tuinstrd@craft.camp.clarkson.edu   |
|                                                                        |
|        "Homo sapiens: planetary cancer??  ...  News at six"            |
+========================================================================+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60772
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Some Recent Observations by Hubble

Here are some recent observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope:

     o The Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) was used to make ultraviolet
       observations of both the planet Pluto, and its moon Charon. The
       peakups were successful. The observations were executed as
       scheduled, and no problems were reported.

     o Observations were made using the High Speed Photometer of the Planet
       Uranus during an occultation by a faint star in Capricornus. These
       observations will help in our understanding of the planet's
       atmospheric radiative and dynamical processes. This event occurred
       close to the last quarter moon, and special arrangements had to be
       made to modify the lunar limit tests to allow these observations.
       The observations are currently being reviewed, and all the
       observations looked okay.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60773
From: almo@packmind.EBay.Sun.COM (Alan Monday-WWCS Business Mgt. Group)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

Hey!? What happened to the solar sail race that was supposed to be
for Columbus+500?

In article 29848@news.duc.auburn.edu, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
>
>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
> Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject
> back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information.
>
>Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?





Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60774
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ozone GIFs Available

                         ==========================
                               OZONE GIF IMAGES
                                April 15, 1993
                         ==========================

     Two GIF images of the ozone maps over the northern and southern
hemispheres are now available at the JPL Info public access site.  These maps
were produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder aboard the Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite (UARS), and are courtesy of the Public Information Office
at JPL.  Note that the images are in GIF89a format, so make sure your display
software supports this format (as opposed to the older GIF87a format).  The
caption files accompanying the images are appended at the end of this message,
as well as being embedded in the images.  The images are available by dialup
modem at +1 (818) 354-1333, up to 9600 bps, parameters N-8-1, or by using
anonymous ftp to:

        ftp:      pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       news (will be moved to the images directory in 30 days)
        files:    ozone93a.gif - Northern hemisphere
                  ozone93b.gif - Southern hemisphere

     Also, photographic prints of these images can be ordered from Newell Color
Lab listed below.  Refer to the P number associated with the images when
ordering.

     Newell Color Lab
     221 N. Westmoreland Avenue
     Los Angeles CA 90064
     Telephone: (213) 380-2980
     FAX: (213) 739-6984

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ozone93a.gif

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

PHOTO                                                     P-42210
                                                   April 14, 1993

This graphic depicts chlorine monoxide and ozone over Earth's
northern hemisphere in February 1992 and 1993.  These maps were
produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder aboard the Upper
Atmosphere Research Satellite.  The chlorine monoxide (ClO) maps
(left) are for a layer about 20 kilometers (66,000 feet) above
the Earth's surface on February 17, 1992 (above) and 1993
(below).  The ozone maps show the total amount above an altitude
of about 12 kilometers (41,000 feet) averaged over the period
from February 15 to March 6 for the two years.  The Microwave
Limb Sounder, developed and operated by a team at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, is one of several instruments on the
Goddard Space Flight Center's Upper Atmosphere Research
Satellite, launched in September 1991.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ozone93b.gif

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

PHOTO CAPTION                                             P-42211
                                                   April 14, 1993

This graphic depicts chlorine monoxide (ClO) and the Antarctic
ozone hole.  These maps, produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder
aboard the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, show the amount
of chlorine monoxide (left) and ozone (right) in the stratosphere
at altitudes above 20 kilometers (66,000 feet).  Very small
abundances of ozone appear where there are large abundances of
chlorine monoxide, the dominant form of chlorine that destroys
ozone.  Data from September 21, 1991 (top) are compared with
those from September 20, 1992 (bottom).  The Microwave Limb
Sounder, developed and operated by a team at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, is one of several instruments on Goddard
Space Flight Center's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
launched September 12, 1991.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60775
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)

In article <1993Apr15.072429.10206@sol.UVic.CA>, rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:
> In article <734850108.F00002@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>>
>>One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
>>many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
>>these individuals?
>>
> 	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:
> 
> 			"Hey, I read sci.space!"
> 
> Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
> (This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
> the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")

A practical suggestion, to be sure, but one could *also* peek into
news.lists, where Brian Reid has posted "USENET Readership report for
Mar 93." Another posting called "USENET READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR
MAR 93" gives the methodology and caveats of Reid's survey.  (These
postings failed to appear for a while-- I wonder why?-- but they are
now back.)

Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers...
Sorry, Mark.

I suspect Mark, dangling out there on Fidonet, may not get news.lists
so I've mailed him copies of these reports.

The bottom line?

        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
        |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
        |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
        |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
        V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V
  88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space 

The first figure indicates that sci.space ranks 88th among most-read
newsgroups.

I've been keeping track sporadically to watch the growth of traffic
and readership.  You might be entertained to see this.

Oct 91   55  71000  1387   84%   718  1865.2    21%  0.04   4.2%  sci.space
Mar 92   43  85000  1741   82%  1207  2727.2    13%  0.06   4.1%  sci.space
Jul 92   48  94000  1550   80%  1044  2448.3    12%  0.04   3.8%  sci.space
May 92   45  94000  2023   82%   834  1744.8    13%  0.04   4.1%  sci.space
(some kind of glitch in estimating number of readers happens here)
Sep 92   45  51000  1690   80%  1420  3541.2    16%  0.11   3.6%  sci.space 
Nov 92   78  47000  1372   81%  1220  2633.2    17%  0.08   2.8%  sci.space 
(revision in ranking groups happens here(?))
Mar 93   88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space 

Possibly old Usenet hands could give me some more background on how to
interpret these figures, glitches, or the history of Reid's reporting
effort.  Take it to e-mail-- it doesn't belong in sci.space.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | In a churchyard in the valley
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Where the myrtle doth entwine
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | There grow roses and other posies
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Fertilized by Clementine.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60777
From: Chris W. Johnson <chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: New DC-x gif

In article <Cohen-150493082611@q5022531.mdc.com> Andy Cohen,
Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com writes:
> I just uploaded "DCXart2.GIF" to bongo.cc.utexas.edu...after Chris Johnson
> moves it, it'll probably be in pub/delta-clipper.

Thanks again Andy.

The image is in pub/delta-clipper now. The name has been changed to 
"dcx-artists-concept.gif" in the spirit of verboseness. :-)

----Chris

Chris W. Johnson

Internet:   chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu
AppleLink:  chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu@internet#

...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60778
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>
>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.

Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING
LOT of the K-MART!

				UNLIMITED INSEMINATION OF THIS MESSAGE
					RIGIDLY REFUSED



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60779
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus)

In article <1993Apr15.170048.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
>States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K... Later, they went
>on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.
>
>The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
>airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
>look at.

They recycled a lot of models and theme music for UFO.  Some of the
concepts even showed up in SPACE: 1999. 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60780
From: ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat)
Subject: Shuttle Launch Question

There has been something bothering me while watching
NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
inquiring minds just gotta know............

Yeah, yeah, I know, its those dumb cosmospheres again!
=============================================================
Randy Padgett, Supervisor      BITNET   : ETRAT@TTACS        
Academic Computing Facilities  Internet : ETRAT@TTACS.TTU.EDU 
Texas Tech University          THEnet   : TTACS::ETRAT        
Lubbock, TX 79409-42042  (806) 742-3653   FAX (806) 742-1755

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60781
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr15.051309.22252@stortek.com>, pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey (higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov) wrote:
> : While you're at it, comet experts, explain how a comet gets into
> : Jovian orbit to begin with!
> 
> : There are non-gravitational forces from heating and outgassing when a
> : comet gets into the inner solar system.  [...]
> 
> Don't forget the Galilean satellites of Jupiter.  
 
 My poor old physics intuition will be very surprised if these tiny
 masses, sitting very close to Jupiter, play any role whatsoever in the
 problem.   Or, to put it more technically, the extra "volume" they add
 to the phase space of possible capture trajectories is negligible.
 
 Jupiter is 2E27 kg, while the Galilean satellites are around 1E23.
 
 Also, as I said, the few references that I've looked at do not
 mention outgassing or breakup as important processes.  The important
 thing is a Jupiter-Sun-comet "reverse slingshot" that leads to a
 weakly Jupiter-bound orbit for the comet (at least a temporary one).
 
 Bill Higgins                       | Late at night she still doth haunt me
 Fermilab                           | Dressed in garments soaked in brine
 Bitnet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | Though in life I used to hug her
 Internet:   HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Now she's dead, I draw the line!
 SPAN/Hepnet:       43011::HIGGINS  |  --after the tragedy, "Clementine"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60782
From: jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch)
Subject: A WRENCH in the works?


Hi all,

I really thought that by now I would have seen something
about this, but I haven't, so here goes:  Last night on
the evening news, the anchorperson said something to the
effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.  There
was no elaboration as to where specfically the item was
found, of what type of wrench it was, but the anchorperson
did say something about a NASA official commenting that
there would be an inquiry into how the thing got in the SSRB.

Has anybody else on the net whose info sources may be 
better than mine heard anything about this?  It seems rather
weird.

Mitch ---------------------------->jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60783
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: Some Recent Observations by Hubble

In article <15APR199316461058@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>Here are some recent observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope:
>
>     o Observations were made using the High Speed Photometer of the Planet
>       Uranus during an occultation by a faint star in Capricornus.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow! I knew Uranus is a long way off, but I didn't think it was THAT far away!

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60784
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/15/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                             POST-LAUNCH
                         April 9 - 15, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 9, real-time commands were sent, as planned, to reacquire
celestial reference after completion of the Low Gain Antenna (LGA-2)
swing/Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) hammer activities.

2.  On April 9, the EJ-1 (Earth-Jupiter #1) sequence memory load was uplinked
to the spacecraft without incident.  This sequence covers spacecraft activity
from April 12, 1993 to June 14, 1993 and includes a window for the Radio Relay
Antenna (RRA) slew test on April 28, 1993.  The command loss timer was set to
11 days as a part of this sequence memory load.

3.  On April 12 and 15, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss
timer to 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

4.  On April 12, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

5.  On April 12, an Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to verify
the health status of the USO and to collect gravitational red shift experiment
data; long term trend analysis is continuing.

6.  On April 14, a 40bps modulation index test was performed to determine the
optimal Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) when transmitting at 40bps.  Preliminary
analysis of the data suggests that the present pre-launch selected modulation
index is near the optimal level.

7.  On April 15, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV) and Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.
Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received properly.

8.  On April 15, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster
flushing maintenance activity was performed; all 12 thrusters were flushed
during the activity.  Thruster performance throughout the activity was nominal.

9.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant
changes (greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads
19 DN (4.3 volts).  The DC measurement reads 111 DN (12.9 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

10. The Spacecraft status as of April 15, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  60 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 18 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 6 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 260 hours


GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  Galileo participated in a second DSN (Deep Space Network) acceptance test
for the DSN Telemetry Phase 3 Upgrade on April 13, 1993, using CTA-21
(Compatibility Test Area 21).  The purpose of this test was to verify
the flow of Galileo telemetry data through the new Telemetry Group Controller
(TGC) and the Telemetry Channel Assembly (TCA).  The TGC/TCA is the replacement
for the current Telemetry Processing Assembly (TPA).  Seven different telemetry
rates were run for this test; all ran well on both the MTS (MCCC Telemetry
Subsystem) and the AMMOS MGDS V18.0 GIF with the exception of 10bps.  The
10bps rate had some trouble staying in lock; it appears the TGC/TCA was
not metering the data correctly.  Further comparisons between the MGDS and MTS
data from this test are being conducted. MVT (Mission Verification Test) of
the TGC/TCA system is expected to begin May 16, 1993.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 15, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         152,606,000 km (1.02 AU)
	Distance from Sun           277,519,800 km (1.86 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          93,400 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       543,973,900 km
	Round Trip Light Time       17 minutes, 4 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 15, 1993, a total of 70184 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65076  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5108 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 7 real time commands were transmitted: 6 were initiated in
the sequence design process and one initiated in the real time command process.
Major command activities included commands to reacquire celestial reference,
uplink the EJ-1 sequence memory load, and reset the command loss timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60785
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Successful Balloon Flight Measures Ozone Layer

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011

Contact:  Mary A. Hardin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                              April 15, 1993
#1506

     Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory report the
successful flight of a balloon carrying instruments designed to
measure and study chemicals in the Earth's ozone layer.

     The April 3 flight from California's Barstow/Daggett Airport
reached an altitude of 37 kilometers (121,000 feet) and took
measurements as part of a program established to correlate data
with the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).  

     The data from the balloon flight will also be compared to
readings from the Atmospheric Trace Molecular Spectroscopy
(ATMOS) experiment which is currently flying onboard the shuttle
Discovery.

     "We launch these balloons several times a year as part of an
ongoing ozone research program.  In fact, JPL is actively
involved in the study of ozone and the atmosphere in three
important ways," said Dr. Jim Margitan, principal investigator on
the balloon research campaign.  

     "There are two JPL instruments on the UARS satellite," he
continued.  "The ATMOS experiment is conducted by JPL scientists,
and the JPL balloon research provides collaborative ground truth
for those activities, as well as data that is useful in its own
right."

     The measurements taken by the balloon payload will add more
pieces to the complex puzzle of the atmosphere, specifically the
mid-latitude stratosphere during winter and spring. 
Understanding the chemistry occurring in this region helps
scientists construct more accurate computer models which are
instrumental in predicting future ozone conditions.

     The scientific balloon payload consisted of three JPL
instruments:  an ultraviolet ozone photometer which measures
ozone as the balloon ascends and descends through the atmosphere;
a submillimeterwave limb sounder which looks at microwave
radiation emitted by molecules in the atmosphere; and a Fourier
transform infrared interferometer which monitors how the
atmosphere absorbs sunlight. 

     Launch occurred at about noontime, and following a three-
hour ascent, the balloon floated eastward at approximately 130
kilometers per hour (70 knots).  Data was radioed to ground
stations and recorded onboard.  The flight ended at 10 p.m.
Pacific time in eastern New Mexico when the payload was commanded
to separate from the balloon.

     "We needed to fly through sunset to make the infrared
measurements," Margitan explained, "and we also needed to fly in
darkness to watch how quickly some of the molecules disappear."

     It will be several weeks before scientists will have the
completed results of their experiments.  They will then forward
their data to the UARS central data facility at the Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland for use by the UARS
scientists.    

     The balloon was launched by the National Scientific Balloon
Facility, normally based in Palestine, Tex., operating under a
contract from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility.  The balloon was
launched in California because of the west-to-east wind direction
and the desire to keep the operation in the southwest.

     The balloons are made of 20-micron (0.8 mil, or less than
one-thousandth of an inch) thick plastic, and are 790,000 cubic
meters (28 million cubic feet) in volume when fully inflated with
helium (120 meters (400 feet) in diameter).  The balloons weigh
between 1,300 and 1,800 kilograms (3,000 and 4,000 pounds).  The
scientific payload weighs about 1,300 kilograms (3,000) pounds
and is 1.8 meters (six feet) square by 4.6 meters (15 feet) high.

     The JPL balloon research is sponsored by NASA's Upper
Atmosphere Research Program and the UARS Correlative Measurements
Program.                        

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60786
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Russian Operation of US Space Missions.

I know people hate it when someone says somethings like "there was an article 
about that somewhere a while ago" but I'm going to say it anyway.  I read an
article on this subject, almost certainly in Space News, and something like
six months ago.  If anyone is really interested in the subject I can probably
hunt it down given enough motivation.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de le realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60787
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?


There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60788
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus)

In article <1qju0bINN10l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
> There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its 
> name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the 
> Sun so it could never be visible from Earth. 

This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K.  It was produced by the great
team of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (whose science was usually a bit
better than this).  It may have been their first production using live
actors-- they were better known for their technophilic puppet shows,
such as *Supercar*, *Stingray*, and *Thunderbirds*.  Later, they went
on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.

The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
look at.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | In a churchyard in the valley
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Where the myrtle doth entwine
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | There grow roses and other posies
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Fertilized by Clementine.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60789
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <15APR199315012030@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.094320.1723@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes...
>>> > So how close would the comet have gotten to Jupiter on the pass that
>>> > put it into temporary orbit, and how far is it likely to get from
>>> > Jupiter before it makes its escape?
>>> 
>>> The answer to all of these questions is we don't know yet.
>>> We don't know for sure if the comet is in a temporary orbit.
>> 
>>I see.  I wasn't so interested in this particular case as in typical
>>behavior, anyway.  Can these questions be answered for a previous
>>instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?
> 
> Gehrels 3 was in a temporary Jovian orbit for about 3 or 4 years.  I'll
> get the orbital elements from Dance of the Planets and post them here.

Sorry folks, I should have done this, and meant to just after i hit the 
send key...

Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)

p(au)          3.424346
e              0.151899
i              1.0988
cap_omega(0) 243.5652
W(0)         231.1607
epoch       1977.04110

Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:

April  1973     83 jupiter radii
August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

Hope this helps...I'm even less of an orbital mechanic than I am an artist.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60790
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56     
1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.06179397  .00044513  00000-0  12649-3 0   230
2 22621  57.0022 147.2850 0004246 288.7332  38.0941 15.92991629  1084
1993 023B  
1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86
2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60791
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <1993Apr14.231654.14060@stsci.edu> rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>This question is probably mostly for Allen Sherzer, but anyone who KNOWS
>would be welcome to answer.  I was just wondering if we could have some kind
>of update on DC-X.

Well it rolled out two weeks ago. As we speak it is at White Sands getting
ready. I would have called my sources for the latest but they are all out
of town (in NM).

As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work
on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have
some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital
prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for
another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with
major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a
set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.

Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of
this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next
year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.

Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made
for spending half on DC.

Public support is STILL critical. Meet with your Congressperson (I'll
help you do it) and get his/her support. Also call your local media
ans get them to cover the flight tests.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------62 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60792
From: aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Subject: NASP



Could someone please send me the basics of the NASP project:
1. The proposal/objectives
2. The current status of the project/obstacles encountered
3. Chance that the project shall ever be completed
or any other interesting information about this project.

Any help will be much appreciated

--
Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca]
>House, Nepean, Ontario, Canada, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Cluster A21<
DISCALIMER: Any injuries occuring as a direct result from the reading of this
message INCLUDING HEART PALPITATIONS is not my fault in any shape or form.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60793
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Event in Los Angeles, CA

   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290

   15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA

     LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.
  ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD

   On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National 
Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co-
inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D.
Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science
Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.

   Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space
Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell
International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world
authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or
coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial
materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David
Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.

   Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal
experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build
the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a
potential to power the globe.

   For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half
from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific
concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.

   The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar
surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted
through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous
source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever
increasing demand using proven, basic technology.

   OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the
National Space Society, which is an international non-profit
organization that promotes development of the space frontier.
The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.

       WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino
               Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.

   DIRECTIONS: Ventura Freeway 101 to Thousand Oaks, exit onto
               Lynn Road heading North (right turn from 101
               North, Left turn from 101 South), after about 1/2
               mile turn Left on Camino Dos Rios, after about 1/2
               mile make First Right into Rockwell after Camino
               Colindo, Parking at Top of Hill to the Left


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60794
From: rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1qjs1j$306@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>
>In the old days,  their used to be Arbitron stats'  that analyzed
>the readership and posting volumes  by group  and user.
>
>They were available from UUNET.   That's how you check the
>readership of Sci.space,  not some stupid  unscientific attempt
>to  flood the newsgroup.
>
>I have abetter idea.  WHy don't we all reply directly to the
>origanator  of this post,  and tell him we read sci.space ;-)
>
>
>pat

	Sigh.
	I try to make a little joke, I try to inject some humour here
and what happens?  In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn:

	"I say, that was a _joke_, son."

	I thought that the bit about McElwaine, not to mention the two
smileys, would indicate to even the most humour impaired that I was
JOKING.
	Sigh.
	(And will everyone who pat's suggestion (thanks bunches, pat)
*please* stop sending me email.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     rborden@ra.uvic.ca            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60795
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>There has been something bothering me while watching
>NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
>bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
>they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
>exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but


In pure speculation, I would guess cautions based on hazardous
pre-launch ops would qualify.  Something like "Caution:  SRBs
have just been armed."  

It does raise an interesting question as to how hard it is to 
pick out an Expected Error from an Unexpected Error in the heat
of the moment. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60796
Subject: <None>
From: bioccnt@otago.ac.nz


Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 

He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
bidder....." 

Attribution and correction of the quote would be much appreciated. 

Clive Trotman


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60797
From: nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:



>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.

I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
during assembly of one SRB. No more info as to the location in the SRB.
I agree, pretty weird.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60798
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1qk4qf$mf8@male.EBay.Sun.COM> almo@packmind.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Hey!? What happened to the solar sail race that was supposed to be
>for Columbus+500?

There was a recession, and none of the potential entrants could raise any
money.  The race organizers were actually supposed to be handling part of
the fundraising, but the less said about that the better.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60799
From: lazarus@katarina.dev.cdx.mot.com (John McGlaughlin)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:

>	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:

>			"Hey, I read sci.space!"

>Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
>(This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
>the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")

Don't you think it would be better to E-mail back to you that we read sci.space
so that you can count them and every server in the world does not have to get
BW'd to death.  Or instead you could possible cut and past all the senders into
a single post and save on header bandwidth....  Not meaning to be taken as a 
flame  it's late and we have to work toward a demo .... little punchy
-- 

-jftm-

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60800
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Clementine Science Team Selected

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

>In article <stephens.734792933@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:

>   Remember the first government scientist in the British Empire was
>   the Astronomer Royal, who was paid [...] from the Department
>   of Ordinance Budget (i.e. the military). Flamsteed House (the original
>   RGO) was built out of Army Surplus Scrap ( A gate house at the Tower of
>   London ?), and paid for by the sale of time expired gunpowder [...]

>At the time, astronomy was vital to the military, in that navigation
>and cartography were of primary impoortance to the military, and good
>cartography was impossible without good astronomy.

>The relevance these daysis somewhat less obvious.

>Nick

It still applies, except the astronomy these days is Very Long Baseline
Radio Astronomy coupled to GPS and Satellite Laser Ranging. The data
from NASA's and the Naval Observatory's (among others) is a vital 
source of data for studies into crustal dynamics, Earth rotation, and
purturbations. Every time there is a leap second added to the New Year,
remember the military and science are still co-habiting nicely. The
same VLBI was used to track Gallileo as it passed the Earth, and used
so little fuel that it can afford to observe Ida. 
 
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60801
From: 8725157m@levels.unisa.edu.au
Subject: Cold gas roll control thruster tanks

Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
for sounding rockets?

Thanks in advance,
Jim.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60802
From: <TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Apollo Training in Iceland

The Apollo astronauts also trained at (in) Meteor Crater in the Flagstaff
area (Arizona).  There is now a museum with a space shop.
Caution: they ease you by 6$. Compared to a KSC visit it's not worth.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut             |  Disclaimer:
mbp Software & Systems GmbH    |
c/o ESA/ESOC/FCSD/OAD/STB      |  Neither ESA nor mbp is responsible
Darmstadt, Germany             |  for my postings!
tnedderh@esoc.bitnet           |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60803
From: rdl1@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Lorenz)
Subject: Cold Gas tanks for Sounding Rockets

>Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
>for sounding rockets?

Well, first you work out how much cold gas you need, then make the
tanks big enough.

Working out how much cold gas is another problem, depending on
vehicle configuration, flight duration, thruster Isp (which couples
into storage pressure, which may be a factor in selecting tank
wall thickness etc.)

Ralph Lorenz
Unit for Space Sciences
University of Kent, UK

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60804
From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Subject: Big amateur rockets

I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.

Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
reach 50,000 feet.

Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.

And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.


-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas
-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME                          "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL                              "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
/*            Just remember, you *WILL* die someday.             */

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60806
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)

: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

: >There is an emergency oxygen system that is capable of maintaining a
: >breathable atmosphere in the cabin for long enough to come down, even
: >if there is something like a 5cm hole in the wall that nobody tries
: >to plug.

Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied:
: Wow.

: Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall?

Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.

Programmatically, yes, we can land an Orbiter with a 5 cm hole in
the wall -- provided that the thing which caused 5 cm hole didn't
cause a Crit 1 failure on some of the internal systems.  There are
a few places where a 5 cm hole would cause a Bad Day -- especially
if the 5 cm hole went all the way through the Orbiter and out the
other side, as could easily happen with a meteor strike.  But a
hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit
to the next available landing site.

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

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60807
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: japanese moon landing?

Afraid I can't give any more info on this.. and hoping someone in greter
NETLAND has some details.

A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

the article was very vague and unclear.  and, to make matters worse, I
didn't clip it.

does this jog anyone's memory?


thanks
dannyb@panix.com



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60808
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:
>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.
>
>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.

The situation in this regard has changed considerably in recent years.
See the discussion of "high-power rocketry" in the rec.models.rockets
frequently-asked-questions list.

This is not hardware you can walk in off the street and buy; you need
proper certification.  That can be had, mostly through Tripoli (the high-
power analog of the NAR), although the NAR is cautiously moving to extend
the upper boundaries of what it considers proper too.

You need special FAA authorization, but provided you aren't doing it under
one of the LAX runway approaches or something stupid like that, it's not
especially hard to arrange.

As with model rocketry, this sort of hardware is reasonably safe if handled
properly.  Proper handling takes more care, and you need a lot more empty
air to fly in, but it's basically just model rocketry scaled up.  As with
model rocketry, the high-power people use factory-built engines, which
eliminates the major safety hazard of do-it-yourself rocketry.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60809
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes:
>jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:
>>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.
>I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
>to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
>said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
>during assembly of one SRB.

I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said
that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside
it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up.

Why do I get the feeling that Thiokol "manager's hats" are shaped like cones?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60810
From: jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (jim jaworski)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:

> In article <734850108.F00002@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permane
> >
> >One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
> >many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
> >these individuals?
> >
> 	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:
> 
> 			"Hey, I read sci.space!"
> 
> Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
> (This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
> the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")
> 

As an Amateur Radio operator (VHF 2metres) I like to keep up with what is 
going up (and for that matter what is coming down too).
 
In about 30 days I have learned ALOT about satellites current, future and 
past all the way back to Vanguard series and up to Astro D observatory 
(space).  I borrowed a book from the library called Weater Satellites (I 
think, it has a photo of the earth with a TIROS type satellite on it.)
 
I would like to build a model or have a large color poster of one of the 
TIROS satellites I think there are places in the USA that sell them.
ITOS is my favorite looking satellite, followed by AmSat-OSCAR 13 
(AO-13).
 
TTYL
73
Jim

jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60811
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)

In article <1993Apr16.151729.8610@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied:
>: Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall?
>Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.

Are you volunteering? :)

> But a
>hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit
>to the next available landing site.

Will NASA have "available landing sites" in the Russian Republic, now that they
are Our Friends and Comrades?



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60812
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado)
Subject: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)


Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org

If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.  I have a nice
offline message reader/editor, an automated modem "mailer"
program which will pick up mail bundles (quickly and easily),
and an INSTALL.EXE to set them up painlessly.  No charge for
the sci.space feed, though you have to dial Washington, D.C.
This is NOT a BBS -- it's a store & forward system for mail
bundles, with minimum connect times.  (I'm used to overseas
calls.)  (This is not an offer for a free feed for any other
particular newsgroups.)  Speeds of up to 14400 (v32bis) are
supported.  VIP's might be offered other free services, such
as Internet address and other functionality.

I get my feed from UUNET and run a 4-line hub.  I've been
hubbing for years -- I have an extremely reliable hub.

The software I provide runs under MS-DOS (and OS/2 and Windows
as a DOS box).  Other, compatible software packages exist for
the MacIntosh and Unix.

Any responses should be private and go to:  
mark.prado@permanet.org

(By the way, to all, my apologies for the public traffic on my
glib question.  I really didn't expect public replys.  But thanks
to Bill Higgins for the interesting statistics and the lead.)

 * Origin: PerManNet FTSC <=> Internet gateway (1:109/349.2)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60813
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric
Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit
using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that
it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as
a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall
hearing recently that it was about to happen.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60814
From: rjungcla@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:
>I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
>the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
>science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
>It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.
>
>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.
>
>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
>Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.
>
>And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.
>
>
>-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas

Could it be Public Missile, Inc in Michigan?

From the description of ad here, it sounds like they're talking about
"High Power Rocketry", an outgrowth of model rocketry.  This hobby
uses non-metallic structural compoments and commerically manufactured
engines ranging in impulse classification from G to P.  The hobby
has been flourishing from early 1980s and is becoming increasing popular.
Technically this is not consider amateur rocketry.

Any rocket with a liftoff weight greater than 3.3 pounds OR using a
total impulse of G or greater, REQUIRES an FAA waiver to launch.
Typically, a group of people get an FAA waiver for specified period
of time (ie week, weekend, etc.) at a designated site and time, and
all of the launches are then covered under this "blanket waiver".
There is also a "High Power Safety Code" which designates more
specific rules such as launch field size, etc.

Finally, in order to purchase any of the larger (Class B) rocket 
motors you need to certified through either the National Association
of Rocketry or Tripoli Rocketry Association. Certification procedures
require a demonstarted handling and "safe" flight at a total impulse
level.

For more information, watch rec.models.rockets newsgroup.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60815
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

Let's see. These aren't, in a strict sense, amateur rockets. That term
denotes rockets, the engines of which are constructed by the user. The
rockets you describe are called HPR, or high power rockets, to
distinguish them from (smaller) model rockets. They use factory-made
ammonium perchlorate composite propellants in phenolic plastic engines
with graphite nozzles. The engines are classified by impulse. A "D"
engine, for example, can have no more than 20 newton-seconds of impulse.
An "F" engine can have no more than 40 ns. Each letter corresponds to a
doubling of the maximum impulse. So far, engines up to size "O" are
available pretty much off the shelf. Engines of size H and above are
shipped as Class B explosives, and as such are controlled. Engines of
size F and below are shipped as Class C explosives, and are not as
controlled. Class F engines, BTW, are not HPR engines, but model rocket
engines. (Class G engines go in and out of legal limbo.)

There is an HPR Society, The Tripoli Rocket Society, I believe, which
holds events at various sites throughout the year, with all legalities
(FAA waiver included) taken care of. The National Association of
Rocketry is more concerned with engines below H, though it is involved
in HPR as well. These societies certify users of HPR rockets, and
companies will not sell to uncertified individuals.

Bottom Line: It's legit. I suggest you send for a catalog - but forget
the dynamite, will ya?

-Larry C.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60816
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Event near Los Angeles, CA

Apologies if this gets posted twice, but I don't think the first one
made it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290

   15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA

     LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.
  ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD

   On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National 
Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co-
inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D.
Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science
Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.

   Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space
Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell
International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world
authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or
coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial
materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David
Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.

   Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal
experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build
the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a
potential to power the globe.

   For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half
from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific
concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.

   The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar
surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted
through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous
source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever
increasing demand using proven, basic technology.

   OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the
National Space Society, which is an international non-profit
organization that promotes development of the space frontier.
The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.

       WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino
               Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.

   DIRECTIONS: Ventura Freeway 101 to Thousand Oaks, exit onto
               Lynn Road heading North (right turn from 101
               North, Left turn from 101 South), after about 1/2
               mile turn Left on Camino Dos Rios, after about 1/2
               mile make First Right into Rockwell after Camino
               Colindo, Parking at Top of Hill to the Left


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60817
From: drunen@nucleus.ps.uci.edu (Eric Van Drunen)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

Actually, they are legal! I not familiar with the ad you are speaking of
but knowing Popular Science it is probably on the fringe.  However, you
may be speaking of "Public Missle, Inc.", which is a legitimate company
that has been around for a while.

Due to advances in composite fuels, engines are now available for model
rockets using similar composites to SRB fuel, roughly 3 times more 
powerful than black powder motors.  They are even available in a reloadable
form, i.e. aluminum casing, end casings, o-rings (!).  The engines range
from D all the way to M in common manufacture, N and O I've heard of
used at special occasions.

To be a model rocket, however, the rocket can't contain any metal 
structural parts, amongst other requirements.  I've never heard of a
model rocket doing 50,000.  I have heard of > 20,000 foot flights.
These require FAA waivers (of course!).  There are a few large national
launches (LDRS, FireBALLS), at which you can see many > K sized engine
flights.  Actually, using a > G engine constitutes the area of "High
Power Rocketry", which is seperate from normal model rocketry.  Purchase
of engines like I have been describing require membership in the National
Association of Rocketry, the Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., or you have to
be part of an educational institute or company involved in rocketry.

Amatuer rocketry is another area.  I'm not really familiar with this,
but it is an area where metal parts are allowed, along with liquid fuels
and what not.  I don't know what kind of regulations are involved, but
I'm sure they are numerous.

High power rocketry is very exciting!  If you are interested or have 
more questions, there is a newsgroup rec.model.rockets.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60818
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In <1993Apr15.234154.23145@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work
>on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have
>some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital
>prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for
>another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with
>major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a
>set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.

Would the sub-orbital version be suitable as-is (or "as-will-be") for use
as a reuseable sounding rocket?


>Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of
>this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next
>year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.

Thank Ghod! I had thought that Spacelifter would definitely be the
bastard Son of NLS.


(And just as a reminder:)
>Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made
>for spending half on DC.

>Public support is STILL critical. Meet with your Congressperson (I'll
>help you do it) and get his/her support. Also call your local media
>and get them to cover the flight tests.




Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60819
From: kpa@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Karl Anderson)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

From another space forum
>  NOW WHERE DID I LEAVE THOSE PLIERS?
    When workers at the Kennedy Space Center disassembled the STS-56
 solid rocket boosters they were surprised to find a pair of pliers
 lodged into the outside base of the right hand SRB.  The tool survived
 the trip from the launch pad up to approximately a 250,000 foot
 altitude, then down to splashdown and towing back to KSC.

    NASA spokesperson Lisa Malone told the media,

    "It's been a long time since something like this happened.  We've
 lost washers and bolts (before) but never a tool like this."

    The initial investigation into the incident has shown that a
 Thiokol Corp. technician noticed and reported his pliers as missing on
 April 2nd.  Unfortunately, the worker's supervisor did not act on the
 report and Discovery was launched with its "extra payload".  NASA
 officials were never told of the missing tool before the April 8th
 launch date.

    The free-flying pliers were supposed to be tethered to the SRB
 technician.  When the tool was found in an aft section of the booster,
 its 18-inch long rope was still attached.  The pliers were found in a
 part of the booster which is not easily visible from the launch pad.
|(Ron's ed. note:  naaahhh,  just too easy)

    A spokesperson for the Lockheed Space Operations Company said that
 the Shuttle processor will take "appropriate action".  Thiokol is a
 subcontractor to LSOC for work to prepare Shuttle hardware for launch.

_________________________________________________________

Karl Anderson	
DEV/2000: Configuration Management/Version Control

Dept 53K/006-2		Rochester, Minnesota 55901
253-8044		Tie 8-453-8044
INTERNET: karl@vnet.ibm.com
PRODIGY: CMMG96A

"To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield."
			Alfred Lord Tennyson

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60820
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?


In article <25228@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes:
>>jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:
>>>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>>>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>>>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.
>>I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
>>to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
>>said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
>>during assembly of one SRB.

It was a test of the first reusable tool.

>
>I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said
>that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside
>it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up.
>
>Why do I get the feeling that Thiokol "manager's hats" are shaped like cones?

Pointy so they can find them or so they will stick into their pants better, and
be closer to their brains?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60821
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

The Japanese spacecraft, Hiten, crashed on the Moon last weekend.  For the
past three years it has made several lunar flybys and even did some
aerobraking experiments with Earth's atmosphere.  It was placed in lunar
orbit in February 1992, and I guess it finally ran out of fuel and was
unable to maintain its orbit around the Moon.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60822
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Washington Post Article on US-Russian Space Cooperation

Reported yesterday in the Washington Post (Kathy Sawyer, writer):

The article plays down the Russian role in US space.

Gibbons (science advisor to Clinton) sent Goldin a letter indicating
NASA should not limit redesign options to those compatible with Mir
orbit.

The White House thinks expectations for Russian cooperation have been
raised too high.

The article reports that some think the spending and schedule limits
for space station are so stringent that the redesign is nearly
impossible.  That's why some think Goldin has begun looking at 
Russian hardware.

Goldin states NASA will present all options to the administration 
which will then have decision making power.

Goldin and the White House have totally ruled out using Energia to
boost the station.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60823
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5L2xt.IqD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.
>
>Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric
>Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit
>using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that
>it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as
>a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall
>hearing recently that it was about to happen.


The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
deceleration.

	This from an issue of 'Science News' or 'The Planetary Report' I
believe, about 2 months ago(?).


Raymond L. Swartz Jr. (rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu)
================================================================================
I read the newspaper today and was amazed that, in 24 hours, five billion
people could accomplish so little.
================================================================================


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60824
From: goltz@mimi.UU.NET (James P. Goltz)
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?


  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.  It
would be a drive using thermonuclear explosions to drive a spacecraft.
The idea was that you'd detonate devices with somewhere from one to
ten megatons yield behind a "pusher plate" attached to the main
spacecraft.  The shock wave from the explosions would transfer
momentum to the ship.

  Now, in an atmosphere I can see this.  The energy of the explosion
heats the atmosphere, which expands explosively and slams a shock wave
into the pusher plate.  But in a vacuum, only two things I can see are
going to hit the plate: fission/fusion products (barium, krypton,
helium, neutrons, evaporated bomb casing) and electromagnetic
radiation (gammas mostly, some light/heat from irradiated fission
products).

  Would this work?  I can't see the EM radiation impelling very much
momentum (especially given the mass of the pusher plate), and it seems
to me you're going to get more momentum transfer throwing the bombs
out the back of the ship than you get from detonating them once
they're there.

  I must be missing something.  Would someone enlighten me via email?

  Thanks.

-- 
	--Jim

---
Jim Goltz                    AlterNet Engineer               goltz@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60825
From: mwm+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Maimone)
Subject: How to read sci.space without netnews

In article <734975852.F00001@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
>but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
>feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.	

	Kudos to Mark for his generous offer, but there already exists a
large (email-based) forwarding system for sci.space posts:  Space Digest.
It mirrors sci.space exactly, and provides simple two-way communication.

	TO SUBSCRIBE:
	   Send the following message in the *body* (not subject) of an
	   email message:

		subscribe space John Q Public

	   to one of these addresses:

		listserv@uga
		listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu
		listserv@finhutc
		listserv@finhuc.hut.fi
		space-request@isu.isunet.edu

	   You'll receive all the posts in "digest" form once a day.  Please
	   use a listserv if you can, the "space-request" address is handled
	   manually.

	TO POST MESSAGES:
	   Send your message (with a reasonable Subject line) to:

		space@isu.isunet.edu

Questions, comments to space-request@isu.isunet.edu
-- 
Mark Maimone				phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
Carnegie Mellon Computer Science	email: mwm@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60826
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5LDoD.7pC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
>down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
>expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
>originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
>was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
>deceleration.

Actually, Hiten wasn't originally intended to go into lunar orbit at all,
so it indeed didn't have much fuel on hand.  The lunar-orbit mission was
an afterthought, after Hagoromo (a tiny subsatellite deployed by Hiten
during a lunar flyby) had a transmitter failure and its proper insertion
into lunar orbit couldn't be positively confirmed.

It should be noted that the technique does have disadvantages.  It takes
a long time, and you end up with a relatively inconvenient lunar orbit.
If you want something useful like a low circular polar orbit, you do have
to plan to expend a certain amount of fuel, although it is reduced from
what you'd need for the brute-force approach.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60827
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> goltz@mimi.UU.NET (James P. Goltz) writes:
>  Would this work?  I can't see the EM radiation impelling very much
>momentum (especially given the mass of the pusher plate), and it seems
>to me you're going to get more momentum transfer throwing the bombs
>out the back of the ship than you get from detonating them once
>they're there.

The Orion concept as actually proposed (as opposed to the way it has been
somewhat misrepresented in some fiction) included wrapping a thick layer
of reaction mass -- probably plastic of some sort -- around each bomb.
The bomb vaporizes the reaction mass, and it's that which transfers
momentum to the pusher plate.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60828
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)



I thought that under emergency conditions,  the STS  can
put down at any good size Airport.  IF it could take a C-5 or a
747, then it can take an orbiter.   You just need a VOR/TAC

I don't know if they need ILS.

pat

ANyone know for sure.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60829
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr16.014506.27923@sol.UVic.CA> rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:
|In article <1qjs1j$306@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|>
|>
|>In the old days,  their used to be Arbitron stats'  that analyzed
|>the readership and posting volumes  by group  and user.
|>
|>They were available from UUNET.   That's how you check the
|>readership of Sci.space,  not some stupid  unscientific attempt
|>to  flood the newsgroup.
|>
|>I have abetter idea.  WHy don't we all reply directly to the
|>origanator  of this post,  and tell him we read sci.space ;-)
|>
|>
|>pat
|
|	Sigh.
|	I try to make a little joke, I try to inject some humour here
|and what happens?  In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn:
|
|	"I say, that was a _joke_, son."
|
|	I thought that the bit about McElwaine, not to mention the two
|smileys, would indicate to even the most humour impaired that I was
|JOKING.
>	Sigh.
>	(And will everyone who pat's suggestion (thanks bunches, pat)
>*please* stop sending me email.)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
>|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     rborden@ra.uvic.ca            |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, I had put a Wink at the end of my suggestion indicating it was
intensely sarcastic.  I can't help it if everyone got all serious.

Ross.

	I never saw your original posting.  it dropped on the floor
somewhere.  I just saw the trickle down, thought it was intensely
stupid,  not knowing anything about the joke, mentioned arbitron
and left it with an equally stupid joke.  Bill in his ever increasing
devotion to thoroughness dug up  several  arbitron stats.

I myself think the arbitron stats are  severely methodologically impaired,
but are a good measure of proportion.  I don't think anyone
knows how many people read news anymore.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60830
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

> there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit

Is it right??? That is new stuff for me. So it means that  you just can 
not put a sattellite around around the Moon for too long because its 
orbit will be unstable??? If so, what is the reason??? Is that because 
the combined gravitacional atraction of the Sun,Moon and Earth 
that does not provide a stable  orbit around the Moon???

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60831
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Portuguese Launch Complex (was:*Doppelganger*)

> Portugese launch complex were *wonderful

Portuguese launch complex??? Gosh.... Polish are for American in the 
same way as Portuguese are for Brazilians (I am from Brazil). There is 
a joke about the Portuguese Space Agency that wanted to send a 
Portuguese  astronaut to the surface of the Sun (if there is such a thing).
How did they solve all problems of sending a man to the surface of the 
Sun??? Simple... their astronauts travelled during the night...

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60832
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST


>Marshall is investigating a small but odd pressure rise in one SRB
>during the Jan 12 Endeavour launch.  It lasted only three seconds and
>the thrust difference between the two SRBs was not enough to cause
>nozzle gimballing.  The SRB casing shows no abnormalities.

Is this the one that had the {wrench|pliers} found inside after
recovery?



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60833
Subject: Quotation? Lowest bidder...
From: bioccnt@otago.ac.nz


Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 

He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
bidder....." 

Attribution and correction of the quote would be much appreciated. 

Clive Trotman


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60834
From: semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Steve Emmett)
Subject: Moscow Aviation Institute summer school

I have attached a copy of an announcement I picked up during my trip to
Moscow last week.  I have several friends at the Moscow Aviation
Institute who have asked me to post this announcement.  (I have done
some editing, but the contents is unchanged from the original
announcement.) 

For those of you not familiar with the Moscow Aviation Institute, it is
the leading Russian school of higher education dedicated to the training
of aircraft and spacecraft designers.  It specializes in airframe
design, powerplant design, control systems, and power systems.
Virtually all of the major former Soviet airframe designers (Tupolev,
Su, Iluchine, Migoyan, etc.) were schooled at MAI.

I had the opportunity to tour the two museums that are maintained at
MAI.  The aircraft include Mig23, Su 27, Yak 38, the cockpit of an
F-111(!), among others.  It was a fascinating and eye opening
experience, expecially given the fact that the museum was, until a year
or so ago, closed to virtually everyone.  I also had the opportunity to
see some of the experiments being conducted with plasma drive engines
for future space craft use.

If you have any questions about the Institute, or the program, I would
be glad to try and answer them.  The institute, and most of it's faculty
have e-mail addresses.  However, it takes about a day or so for the
receiver to get the message.  They are still a bit antiquated - but they
are rapidly changing!

Steve Emmett
semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu

ps  please send any questions you have for me via e-mail.  George Mason
university has about a 2 week (!) delay in news feed delivery.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

		MOSCOW INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SCHOOL

The aviation school "Poljot" (meaning Flight) is organized by the the
Moscow Aviation Institute, the prominent Russian Center of airspace
education and the foreign trade firm Poljot, well known in various
parts of the world for their quartz and mechanical wrist watches.

The course of studies will last only 50 days, but during this time
you will have the unique opportunity:
	- to listen to intensive courses on the main aviation
disciplines, the history and theory of techniques, and design of
airplanes;
	- to visit and get acquainted with the world known Russian 
aviation firms - TU, MiG, Yak, Il and Su;
	- to meet and have discussions with famous aviation
scientists, engineers and pilots;
	- to visit the most interesting museums of unique aviation
techniques which were closed for many years to the public;
	- to see the International Airspace Show which will take
place in Moscow from 31 August through 3 September 1993;
	- to visit famous art museums, historical and architectural
monuments, theatres and concert halls;
	- to take part in sport competitions and have a great time
with new friends.

The Director of the school is Mr. Oleg Samelovich, a well known
Russian scientist, professor, general designer and the Chief of the
Airplanes Design Department of the Moscow Aviation Institute.  Mr.
Samelovich is one of the designers of the the Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27

The lectures are given in English, using a multi-media concept.  The
students are provided with all the necessary text books and
literature.  After the full course of studies are completed, the
student will receive a special certificate of graduation.

The cost of studies, including hotel, meals, excursions, theatres,
etc is $3500.

To apply for admission, send your application to:

109147 Moscow Marksistskaja 34
Foreign Trade Firm "Poljot"
274 00 13 (phone)
274 00 22 (FAX)
411989 POLEX SU (telex)

In your application, include your full name, address, date and place
of birth.  In addition, include complete passport information, as well
as a description of your education.

Upon receipt of this information, "Poljot" will immediately forward
to you an official invitation for obtaining a Russian entrance visa
as well as details on payment.

Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

(signed)	O. Samelovich

------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

Steve Emmett				 semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
CSI/Physics, George Mason University

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60835
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject:  ORION space drive

An excellent reference for non-technical readers on the ORION system is
"The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff, ISBN
0-471-61912-4. The relevant chapter is 4: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

The book also contains lots of technical references for the more academically
inclined. 

Enjoy!
---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60836
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: japanese moon landing/temporary orbit

rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:

>The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
>are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
>three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
>earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
>allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
>down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
>expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
>originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
>was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
>deceleration.


I should probably re-post this with another title, so that
the guys on the other thread would see that this is a practical
use of "temporary orbits..."

Another possible temporary orbit:

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60837
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <1qnb9tINN7ff@rave.larc.nasa.gov> C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>> there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit
>
>Is it right??? That is new stuff for me. So it means that  you just can 
>not put a sattellite around around the Moon for too long because its 
>orbit will be unstable??? If so, what is the reason??? Is that because 
>the combined gravitacional atraction of the Sun,Moon and Earth 
>that does not provide a stable  orbit around the Moon???

Any lunar satellite needs fuel to do regular orbit corrections, and when
its fuel runs out it will crash within months.  The orbits of the Apollo
motherships changed noticeably during lunar missions lasting only a few
days.  It is *possible* that there are stable orbits here and there --
the Moon's gravitational field is poorly mapped -- but we know of none.

Perturbations from Sun and Earth are relatively minor issues at low
altitudes.  The big problem is that the Moon's own gravitational field
is quite lumpy due to the irregular distribution of mass within the Moon.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60838
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56     
1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.58333333  .00090711  00000-0  25599-3 0   249
2 22621  57.0029 144.8669 0004136 304.2989 134.3206 15.92851555  1179
1993 023B  
1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86
2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60839
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Guns for Space

In reference to the limits of acceleration with guns launching solid
rockets as payloads.  Thiokol provided me with samples and data on
a reinforcement to solid motor grains for high accelerations.  Solid
motor propellants usually have a substantial percentage of 
aluminum in the mix.  For example, the Space Shuttle SRBs are 16 percent
Aluminum.  The technique is to use a 'foamed aluminum' structure.
The structure looks like the inverse of a set of bubbles (an I suspect
some bubbling process is used to form it).  In other words, if you made
a bunch of bubbles in molten aluminum, then froze it, this is what
you get.  It forms a strong network of effectively aluminum wires in
all directions.  The remaining solid fuel mix is infiltrated into
the voids, and you get aluminum-reinforced solid propellant.  The
foamed-aluminum makes up about 6 percent of the total propellant,
so there is still aluminum particles in the bulk grain.  The major
improvement is the higher resistance to grain cracking, which is the
principal failure mode for solid propellant.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60840
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Guns for Space


Okay, lets get the record straight on the Livermore gas gun.  
The project manager is Dr. John Hunter, and he works for the
Laser group at Livermore.  What, you may ask, does gas guns
have to do with lasers? Nothing, really, but the gun is physically
located across the road from the Free Electron Laser building,
and the FEL building has a heavily shielded control room (thick walls)
from which the gun firings are controlled.  So I suspect that the
office he works for is an administrative convenience.

I visited Hunter at the beginning of Feb. and we toured the gun.
At the time I was working on gas gun R&D at Boeing, where I work,
but I am now doing other things (helping to save the space station),

The gun uses a methane-air mixture, which is burned in a chamber
about 200 ft long by 16 inch ID (i.e. it looks like a pipe).
The chamber holds a 1 ton piston which is propelled at several
hundred m/s down the chamber.  On the other side of the piston
is hudrogen gas, initially at room temperature andsome tens
of atmospheres.

The piston compresses and heats the hydrogen ahead of it until
a stainless steel burst diaphragm ruptures, at around 50,000 psi.
The barrel of the gun is about 100 feet long and has a 4 inch
bore.  It is mounted at right angles to the chamber (i.e. they
intersect).  This was done so that in the future, the barrel
could be raised and the gun fired into the air without having to
move the larger and heavier chamber.  The projectile being used
in testing is a 5 kg cylinder of Lexan plastic, 4 in in diameter
and about 50 cm long.

All of the acceleration comes from the expansion of the hydrogen
gas from 50,000 psi downwards until the projectile leaves the
barrel.  The barrel is evacuated, and the end is sealed with a
sheet of plastic film (a little thicker than Saran wrap).  The
plastic is blown off by the small amount of residual air trapped
in the barrel ahead of the projectile.  

The gun is fired into a bunker filled with sandbags and plastic
water jugs.  In the early testing fragments of the plastic
projectile were found.  At the higher speeds in later testing,
the projectile vaporizes.

The testing is into a bunker because the Livermore test range is
about 3 miles across, and the projectile would go 100-200 km
if fired for maximum range.  The intent is to move the whole gun
to Vandenberg AFB after the testing is complete, where they can
fire into the Pacific Ocean, and use the tracking radar at VAFB
to follow the projectiles.

The design goal of the gun is to throw a 5 kg projectile at 4
km/s (half of orbital speed).  So far they have reached 2 km/s,
and the gun is currently down for repairs, as on the last test
they blew a seal and damaged some of the hardware (I think it
had to do with the methane-air more detonating than burning, but
I haven't had a chance to talk to Hunter directly on this).

There are people waiting to test scramjet components in this
gun by firing then out of the gun into the air (at Mach 12=
4 km/s), since the most you can get in wind tunnels is Mach 8.

This gun cost about 4 million to develop, and is basically
a proof-of-concept for a bigger gun capable of firing useful-
sized payloads into space.  This would require on the order of
100 kg projectiles, which deliver on the order of 20 kg
useful payload to orbit.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60841
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Elevator to the top floor


Reading from a Amoco Performance Products data sheet, their
ERL-1906 resin with T40 carbon fiber reinforcement has a compressive
strength of 280,000 psi.  It has a density of 0.058 lb/cu in,
therefore the theoretical height for a constant section column
that can just support itself is 4.8 million inches, or 400,000 ft,
or 75 Statute miles.

Now, a real structure will have horizontal bracing (either a truss
type, or guy wires, or both) and will be used below the crush strength.
Let us assume that we will operate at 40% of the theoretical 
strength.  This gives a working height of 30 miles for a constant
section column.  

A constant section column is not the limit on how high you can
build something if you allow a tapering of the cross section
as you go up.  For example, let us say you have a 280,000 pound
load to support at the top of the tower (for simplicity in
calculation).  This requires 2.5 square inches of column cross
sectional area to support the weight.  The mile of structure
below the payload will itself weigh 9,200 lb, so at 1 mile 
below the payload, the total load is now 289,200 lb, a 3.3% increase.

The next mile of structure must be 3.3% thicker in cross section
to support the top mile of tower plus the payload.  Each mile
of structure must increase in area by the same ratio all the way
to the bottom.  We can see from this that there is no theoretical
limit on area, although there will be practical limits based
on how much composites we can afford to by at $40/lb, and how
much load you need to support on the ground (for which you need
a foundation that the bedrock can support.

Let us arbitrarily choose $1 billion as the limit in costruction
cost.  With this we can afford perhaps 10,000,000 lb of composites,
assuming our finished structure costs $100/lb.  The $40/lb figure
is just for materials cost.  Then we have a tower/payload mass
ratio of 35.7:1.  At a 3.3% mass ratio per mile, the tower
height becomes 111 miles.  This is clearly above the significant
atmosphere.  A rocket launched from the top of the tower will still
have to provide orbital velocity, but atmospheric drag and g-losses
will be almost eliminated.  G-losses are the component of
rocket thrust in the vertical direction to counter gravity,
but which do not contribute to horizontal orbital velocity.  Thus
they represent wasted thrust.  Together with drag, rockets starting
from the ground have a 15% velocity penalty to contend with.

This analysis is simplified, in that it does not consider wind
loads.  These will require more structural support over the first
15 miles of height.  Above that, the air pressure drops to a low
enough value for it not to be a big factor.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60842
From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Subject: End of the Space Age

There is an interesting opinion piece in the business section of today's
LA Times (Thursday April 15, 1993, p. D1).  I thought I'd post it to
stir up some flame wars - I mean reasoned debate.  Let me preface it by
saying that I largely agree that the "Space Age" in the romantic sense
of several decades ago is over, and that projects like the space station
miss the point at this time.  Reading, for example, "What's New" -
the weekly physics update we get here on the net - it's clear that the
romance of the day lies in the ever more fine-grained manipulation of
matter: by which I include biotechnology, condensed matter physics (with
its spinoffs in computer hardware and elsewhere), and the amazing things
people are doing with individual atoms these days.  To a large extent, I
think, the romance some people still have with space is a matter of
nostalgia.  I feel sure that someday we - or more precisely, our "mind
children" - will spread across space (unless we wipe ourselves out); but
I think that *manned* space exploration is not what is exciting about
what we can do *now*.   

Anyway, let me quote some of this article, but not all...


SPACE AGE GLORY FADES FROM VIEW

Micheal Schrage (writer, consultant, and research associate at MIT)

At 35, America's Space Age won't have to suffer through the angst of a
midlife crisis.

The reason is that the Space Age is already dead.  The technologies no
longer define our times, and the public has grown weary of the multibillion
-dollar celestial investments that yield minimal psychic or economic
rewards.  

Space exploration has mutated from a central focuse of America's science
and technology debate into a peripheral issue.  Speace is not a
meaningful part of the ongoing industrial competitiveness debate, our
technology infrastructure discussions or even our defense conversion
policy.  

To be sure, America should continue to invest in satellite technologies
for telecommunications and remote sensing - cheap deep-space probes
would be nice too - but the ideal of space as a meaningful driver of
scientific and industrial innovation is now dead.

.....

Before the change in administrations, it would have been foolish to
write an obituary for the Space Age.  The Bush White House aggressively
supported the space program and proposed spending well over $30 billion
to build space station Freedom alone.

Even as he proposed budget cuts in other science and technology domains,
Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman was an outspoken
public champion of big-ticket space expenditures.  The reality that much
of the civilian space program - from the shuttle to the Hubble telescope
to the space station - was poorly conceived and unimpressively
implemented did not seem to matter much.

Political inertia and a nostalgic sense of futurism - not a coherent
vision or cost-effective sensibilities - determined multibillion-dollar
space budgets.

Indeed, with few notable exceptions, such as Voyager, the post-Apollo
era is the story of the gold-plated porkification of space exploration
with programs and promises that delivered less for more and more.  

......

While the Clinton Administration has kept on the highly regarded Daniel
Goldin as administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, it seems clear that space exploration is not being
positioned as either a symbolic or substantive centerpiece of America's
technological prowess.  The space station budget has - rightly - been
slashed.  Space is virtually ignored when the Administration champions
its competitiveness agenda.

......

"I wish this had happened 10 years ago instead of starting to happen
now," says Bruce Murray, a Caltech professor who ran NASA's Jet
Propulsion Lab in Pasadena.  "We've put off a lot of things we shouldn't
have.... I would rather see a $10-billion NASA doing well than a
$40-billion one filled with white elephants."

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60843
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> James P. Goltz, goltz@mimi.UU.NET
writes:
>  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.

It was more than a theoretical concept; it was seriously pursued by
Freeman Dyson et al many years ago. I don't know how well-known this is,
but a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
Diego back in 1957 or 1958. I was working at General Atomic at the time,
but I didn't learn about the experiment until almost thirty years later,
when 
Ted Taylor visited us and revealed that it had been done. I feel sure
that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

Leigh

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60844
Subject: help for school
From: mcrandall@eagle.wesleyan.edu

I am a newbie to the net, and I am trying to get some information for a paper
I am working on to get back into college.  If anyone can send me data on
Solar coronal holes and recurrant aurora  for the past thirty years it would be
a big help.  Or, if you have information on more esoteric things like Telluric
current, surge bafflers power companies use, or other effects sporatic aurora
have on the Earth's magnetic field, I'd be eternally gratefull.  Please send 
anything interesting to me at
        Marty Crandall-Grela
        Van Vleck Observatory
        Wesleyan University
        Middletown,Ct 06487
 or e-mail it to me at mcrandall@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 Thank-you in advance,      Marty


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60845
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu>, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
> 
> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>  Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject
>  back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information.
> 
> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?
> 
> 					Frank Snyder
> 					Auburn University
> 
> 					snydefj@eng.auburn.edu


I know someone had long talks about Solar Sails early this year and late last
year..Also about Solar Sailing. Not sure who captured it if possible..

I think it was one of the regulars who had most or all the data?

I think I started the latest round or the late last year round.. But the topic
has been around here, off and on for a year or two..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60846
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Russian Email Contacts.

Does anyone have any Russian Contacts (Space or other) or contacts in the old
USSR/SU or Eastern Europe?

Post them here so we all can talk to them and ask questions..
I think the cost of email is high, so we would have to  keep the content to
specific topics and such..

Basically if we want to save Russia and such, then we need to make contacts,
contacts are a form of info, so lets get informing.

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Alive in Nome, Alaska (once called Russian America).


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60847
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Quotation Was:(Re: <None|)

In article <1993Apr16.155656.1@otago.ac.nz| bioccnt@otago.ac.nz writes:
|
|Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 
|
|He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
|the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
|million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
|bidder....." 
|
Sounds similar to something Wally Schirra said.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60848
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation


The difficulties of a high Isp OTV include:
Long transfer times (radiation damage from VanAllen belts for both
 the spacecraft and OTV
Arcjets or Xenon thrusters require huge amounts of power so you have
to have either nuclear power source (messy, dangerous and source of
radiation damage) or BIG solar arrays (sensitive to radiation, or heavy)
that make attitude control and docking a big pain.

If you go solar, you have to replace the arrays every trip, with
current technology. Nuclear power sources are strongly restricted
by international treaty.

Refueling (even for very high Isp like xenon) is still required and]
turn out to be a pain.

You either have to develop autonomous rendezvous or long range teleoperation
to do docking or    ( and refueling) .

You still can't do much plane change because the deltaV required is so high!

The Air Force continues to look at doing things this way though. I suppose
they are biding their time till the technology becomes available and
the problems get solved.  Not impossible in principle, but hard to
do and marginally cheaper than one shot rockets, at least today.

Just a few random thoughts on high Isp OTV's. I designed one once...

                          Steve Collins

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60849
From: ktj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (kerry todd johnson)
Subject: army in space


Is anybody out there willing to discuss with me careers in the Army that deal
with space?  After I graduate, I will have a commitment to serve in the Army, 
and I would like to spend it in a space-related field.  I saw a post a long
time ago about the Air Force Space Command which made a fleeting reference to
its Army counter-part.  Any more info on that would be appreciated.  I'm 
looking for things like: do I branch Intelligence, or Signal, or other?  To
whom do I voice my interest in space?  What qualifications are necessary?
Etc, etc.  BTW, my major is computer science engineering.

Please reply to ktj@reef.cis.ufl.edu

Thanks for ANY info.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be         =
= considered an enemy planet.  --  Jack Handy                                 =
---ktj@reef.cis.ufl.edu---cirop59@elm.circa.ufl.edu---endeavour@circa.ufl.edu--

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60850
From: mrw9e@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> James P. Goltz, goltz@mimi.UU.NET
>writes:
>>  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.
>
>It was more than a theoretical concept; it was seriously pursued by
>Freeman Dyson et al many years ago. I don't know how well-known this is,
>but a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
>Diego back in 1957 or 1958. I was working at General Atomic at the time,
>but I didn't learn about the experiment until almost thirty years later,
>when 
>Ted Taylor visited us and revealed that it had been done. I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?
>
>Leigh

Nope, I haven't seen the film, but Taylor's biography ("The Curve of 
Binding Energy") contains a short section on Orion and this test flight.
Apparently it was quite impressi, and got von Braun very excited.

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60851
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

There is a guy in NASA Johnson Space Center  that might answer 
your question. I do not have his name right now but if you follow 
up I can dig that out for you.

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60852
From: u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Subject: End of the Space Age?

We are not at the end of the Space Age, but only at the end of Its
beginning.

That space exploration is no longer a driver for technical innovation,
or a focus of American cultural attention is certainly debatable; however,
technical developments in other quarters will always be examined for
possible applications in the space area and we can look forward to
many innovations that might enhance the capabilities and lower the
cost of future space operations. 

The Dream is Alive and Well.

-Jeff Bytof
member, technical staff
Institute for Remote Exploration


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60853
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.

Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60854
From: nether@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Joel C Belog)
Subject: Space Shuttle information wanted



Hello everyone,

	I was hoping someone could help me out.  I'm writing a program
	for my astronautics class for assent of the shuttle into a low
	orbit.  There are two things I'd like to know, First, how much 
	time elapses between launch and the pitch over. Second, what is
	the cross-sectional area of the shuttle, srb's, and ext. tank.

	Thanks for any information, post or e-mail.

	Joel Belog
	nether@wpi.wpi.edu
	

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60855
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: army in space

ktj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (kerry todd johnson) writes:

> Is anybody out there willing to discuss with me careers in the Army that deal
> with space?  After I graduate, I will have a commitment to serve in the Army,
> and I would like to spend it in a space-related field.  I saw a post a long
> time ago about the Air Force Space Command which made a fleeting reference to
> its Army counter-part.  Any more info on that would be appreciated.  I'm 
> looking for things like: do I branch Intelligence, or Signal, or other?  To
> whom do I voice my interest in space?  What qualifications are necessary?
> Etc, etc.  BTW, my major is computer science engineering.

Kerry-- I'm guessing a little at this, because it's been a few years 
since I saw the info, but you will probably want to look at Air Defense 
Artillery as a specialty, or possibly Signals.  The kind of thing you're 
looking for is SDI-type assignments, but it'll be pretty prosaic stuff.
Things like hard-kill ATBM missiles, some of the COBRA rigs -- that kind 
of thing.  

Hope that gives you some ideas on where to look, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60856
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <1993Apr10.145502.28866@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <9APR199318394890@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>>>BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of
>>>10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge).
> 
>>Wrong Allen. The max overhead charge is ALL of the charge. There is no
>>seperately budgeted overhead in any shape size form or fashion. 
> 
>A professor at the University of Virginia told me their wrap was about
>15%. The subcontracts I have let out and worked on for other universities
>are about the same. My employer (a non-profit research institute) does
>the same. This is generally reffered to as the fee.
> 

I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
wrap at this university. I also asked around here. Ther is no wrap at 
Marquette, University of Wisconsin Madison, Utah State, Weber State or
Embry Riddle U. I am not saying that it doees not happen but in every instance
that I have been able to track down it does not. Also the president of our
University who was Provost at University of West Virgina said that it did
not happen there either and that this figure must be included in the overhead
to be a legitimate charge.

>>How do 
>>I know? I write proposals and have won contracts and I know to the dime
>>what the charges are. At UAH for example the overhead is 36.6%.
> 
>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>costing people how much fee they add to a project.
>

I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.

>>If you have some numbers Allen then show them else quit barking. 
> 
>I did Dennis; read the article. To repeat: an internal estimate done by
>the Reston costing department says Freedom can be built for about $1.8B
>a year and operated for $1B per year *IF* all the money where spent on
>Freedom. Since we spend about half a billion $$ more per year it looks
>like roughly 25% of the money is wasted. Now if you think I'm making
>this up, you can confirm it in the anonymous editorial published a few
>weeks ago in Space News.
>

No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
of the Overhead capital of NASA. Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.
Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
at a place where everything is overhead.

>This Dennis, is why NASA has so many problems: you can't accept that
>anything is wrong unless you can blame it on Congress. Oh, sure, you'll
>say NASA has problems but do you believe it? Remember the WP 02
>overrun? You insisted it was all congresses fault when NASA management
>knew about the overrun for almost a year yet refused to act. Do you
>still blame Congress for the overrun?
>

Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
selective with the facts again.

>>By your own numbers Allen, at a cost of 500 million per flight the
>>service cost of flying shuttle to SSF is 2 billion for four flights, so how
>>did you get your one billion number?
> 
>I have no idea what your trying to say here Dennis.
> 
>  Allen
>-- 

If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
do so.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60857
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: army in space


There is the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

They were the precursors to SDIO.  and still exist under
that umbrella.  Army Signal Corp's  and DCA  defense Comm Agency
oops  DISA, they just changed names  do space work.  that's
the point of all those defense comm sats.  

But don't worry,  there are lots of jobs that need ditch digging,
somehow you'll end up there ;-)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60858
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: End of the Space Age?



Oddly, enough,  The smithsonian calls the lindbergh years
the golden age of flight.  I would call it the granite years,
reflecting the primitive nature of it.  It was  romantic,
swashbuckling daredevils,  "those daring young men in their flying
machines".  But in reality, it sucked.  Death was a highly likely
occurence,  and  the environment blew.  Ever see the early navy
pressure suits,  they were modified  diving suits.  You were ready to
star in "plan 9 from outer space".   Radios  and Nav AIds were
a joke,  and engines ran on castor oil.  They  picked and called aviators
"men with iron stomachs",  and it wasn't due to vertigo.

Oddly enough, now we are in the golden age of flight.  I can hop the
shuttle to NY for $90 bucks,  now that's golden.

Mercury gemini, and apollo were romantic,  but let's be honest.
Peeing in bags,  having plastic bags glued to your butt everytime
you needed a bowel movement.  Living for days inside a VW Bug.
Romantic,  but not commercial.   The DC-X  points out a most likely
new golden age.  An age where  fat cigar smoking business men in
loud polyester space suits will fill the skys with strip malls
and used space ship lots.

hhhmmmmm,  maybe i'll  retract that golden age bit.   Maybe it was
better in the old days.  Of course, then we'll have  wally schirra
telling his great grand children, "In my day,  we walked on the moon.
Every day.  Miles.  no buses.  you kids got it soft".

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60859
From: aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Subject: A flawed propulsion system: Space Shuttle



For an essay, I am writing about the space shuttle and a need for a better
propulsion system.  Through research, I have found that it is rather clumsy 
(i.e. all the checks/tests before launch), the safety hazards ("sitting
on a hydrogen bomb"), etc..  If you have any beefs about the current
space shuttle program Re: propulsion, please send me your ideas.

Thanks a lot.

--
Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca]
Nepean, Ontario, Canada.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60860
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>... a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
>Diego back in 1957 or 1958...   I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
the film continuously repeating.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60861
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation

In article <C5MtyJ.12q@well.sf.ca.us> collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes:
>The difficulties of a high Isp OTV include...
>If you go solar, you have to replace the arrays every trip, with
>current technology.

You're assuming that "go solar" = "photovoltaic".  Solar dynamic power
(turbo-alternators) doesn't have this problem.  It also has rather less
air drag due to its higher efficiency, which is a non-trivial win for big
solar plants at low altitude.

Now, you might have to replace the *rest* of the electronics fairly often,
unless you invest substantial amounts of mass in shielding.

>Nuclear power sources are strongly restricted
>by international treaty.

References?  Such treaties have been *proposed*, but as far as I know,
none of them has ever been negotiated or signed.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60862
From: John Lussmyer <dragon@angus.mi.org>
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> The first flight will be a low hover that will demonstrate a vertical
> landing.  There will be no payload.  DC-X will never carry any kind

Exactly when will the hover test be done, and will any of the TV
networks carry it.  I really want to see that...

--
John Lussmyer (dragon@angus.mi.org)
Mystery Spot BBS, Royal Oak, MI --------------------------------------------?--


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60863
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <C5nGxq.663@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer,
henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:
>The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
>When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
>the film continuously repeating.

Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
month with my wife, who was also working at General Atomic at the time.
Once again netnews has enriched my life.

Leigh

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60864
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
>line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
>wrap at this university. 

Dennis, I have worked on or written proposals worth tens of millions
of $$. Customers included government (including NASA), for profit and
non-profit companies. All expected a wrap (usually called a fee). Much
of the work involved allocating and costing the work of subcontractors.
The subcontractors where universities, for-profits, non-profits, and
even some of the NASA Centers for the Commercialization of Space. ALL
charged fees as part of the work. Down the street is one of the NASA
commercialization centers; they charge a fee.

Now, I'm sure your a competent engineer Dennis, but you clearly lack
experience in several areas. Your posts show that you don't understand
the importance of integration in large projects. You also show a lack
of understanding of costing efforts as shown by your belief that it
is reasonable to charge incremental costs for everything. This isn't
a flame, jsut a statement.

Your employer DOES charge a fee. You may not see it but you do.

>>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>>costing people how much fee they add to a project.

>I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
>any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.

Well there you are Dennis. As I said, they simply include the fee in
their overhead. Many seoparate the fee since the fee structure can
change depending on the customer.

>No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
>of the Overhead capital of NASA. 

Integration, Dennis, isn't overhead.

>Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
>better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.

Dennis, Reston has been the only NASA agency working to reduce costs. When
WP 02 was hemoraging out a billion $$, the centers you love so much where
doing their best to cover it up and ignore the problem. Reston was the
only place you would find people actually interested in solving the
problems and building a station.

>Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
>at a place where everything is overhead.

When you have a bit more experience Dennis, you will realize that
integration isn't overhead. It is the single most important part
of a successful large scale effort.

>Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
>demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
>selective with the facts again.

The story you refer to said that some NASA people blamed it on
Congress. Suprise suprise. The fact remains that it is the centers
you support so much who covered up the overheads and wouldn't address
the problems until the press published the story.

Are you saying the Reston managers where wrong to get NASA to address
the overruns? You approve of what the centers did to cover up the overruns?

>If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
>of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
>"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
>for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
>blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.

You should know Dennis that NASA doesn't include transport costs for
resuply. That comes from the Shuttle budget. What they where saying
is that operational costs could be cut in half plus transport.

>Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
>to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
>do so.

I do hope you can find the time to tell us just why it was wrong of
Reston to ask that the problems with WP 02 be addressed.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------60 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60865
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Clementine mission name

Mark Prado
  
>Please go just one step further:
>How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?
  
Old pioneer song from the 1850's or so goes as follows:
  
  "In a cavern, in a canyon,
   Excavating for a mine,
   Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
   And his daughter, CLEMENTINE"
  
Chorus:
  "Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
   Oh my darling Clementine.
   You are lost and gone forever,
   Oh my darling Clementine."
  
 I've also had it explained (but not confirmed from a reliable data
source) that CLEMENTINE is an acronym.  Something like Combined
Lunar Elemental Mapper Experiment on Extended Non Terrestrial
Intercept Near Earth.  Personally, I think that acronym was made up
to fit the name (if it really is an acronym).
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60866
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Clipper Launch Article

To All -- I thought the net would find this amusing..
  
From the March 1993 "Aero Vision" (The newsletter for the Employees
of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace at Huntington Beach, California).
  
  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY
  
  "On Monday, March 15 at noon, Quest Aerospace Education, Inc.
  launched two DC-Y Space Clippers in the mall near the cafeteria.
  The first rocket was launched by Dr. Bill Gaubatz, director and
  SSTO program manager, and the second by Air Force Captain Ed
  Spalding, who with Staff Sgt. Don Gisburne represents Air Force
  Space Command, which was requested by SDIO to assess the DC-X for
  potential military operational use.  Both rocket launches were
  successful.  The first floated to the ground between the cafeteria
  and Building 11, and the second landed on the roof of the
  cafeteria.
  
  Quest's Space Clipper is the first flying model rocket of the
  McDonnell Douglas DC-X.  The 1/122nd semi-scale model of the
  McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper has an estimated maximum altitude
  of 300 feet.  The Space Clippers can be used in educational
  settings to teach mathematics and science, as well as social
  studies and other applications.  The Space Clipper is available
  either in the $35 Space Clipper outfit, which includes everything
  needed for three launches, or as individual rockets for $12 each.
  Both are available through hobby shops or by calling 1-800-858-
  7302."
  
By the way -- this is not an endorsement to buy the product nor is
it an advertisement to buy the product.  I make no claims about the
product.  This is posted for public information only (hey, I found
it amusing...), and is merely a repeat of what was included in the
MDSSC Huntington Beach Newsletter.
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60867
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: LRDPA news

        Many of you at this point have seen a copy of the 
Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act by now. This bill, also known as the Back to 
the Moon bill, would authorize the U.S. 
government to purchase lunar science data from private 
and non-profit vendors, selected on the basis of competitive bidding, with an 
aggregate cap on bid awards of $65 million. 
        If you have a copy of the bill, and can't or don't want to go through 
all of the legalese contained in all Federal legislation,don't both - you have 
a free resource to evaluate the bill for you. Your local congressional office, 
listed in the phone book,is staffed by people who can forward a copy of the
bill to legal experts. Simply ask them to do so, and to consider supporting
the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act. 
        If you do get feedback, negative or positive, from your congressional 
office, please forward it to: David Anderman
3136 E. Yorba Linda Blvd., Apt G-14, Fullerton, CA 92631,
or via E-Mail to: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org. 
        Another resource is your local chapter of the National Space Society. 
Members of the chapter will be happy to work with you to evaluate and support 
the Back to the Moon bill. For the address and telephone number of the nearest 
chapter to you, please send E-mail, or check the latest issue of Ad Astra, in 
a library near you.
        Finally, if you have requested, and not received, information about
the Back to the Moon bill, please re-send your request. The database for the
bill was recently corrupted, and some information was lost. The authors of the 
bill thank you for your patience.


--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60868
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective.


  I might suggest giving the management some more mumble time by asking
the very leading question (in two or three parts)
   What are your long term expectations of space market, what projects
specifically are they funding by internal funds and at what levels
and what competition do you expect in this  area. (This last point
is always worth hitting upper management with "gently" if you want 
them to think and as hard as you can if you have a good case that
there really is competion)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60869
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.


  I doubt there are good prospects for  a self armoring system
for venus surface conditions (several hundred degrees, very high
pressure of CO2, possibly sulfuric and nitric acids or oxides
but it is a notion to consider for outer planets rs where you might
pick up ices under less extream upper atmosphere conditions buying
deeper penetration.  A nice creative idea, unlikly but worthy of
thinking about.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60870
From: sugarman@ra.cs.umb.edu (Steven R. Garman)
Subject: WANTED - Optical Shaft Encoders for Telescope


[Also posted in misc.forsale.wanted,misc.wanted,ne.wanted,ny.wanted,nj.wanted]

WANTED:  Optical Shaft Encoders

Quantity 2
Single-ended
Incremental

Needed to encode the movements of a 16" Cassegrain telescope.  The telescope
is in the observatory of the Univ. of Mass. at Boston.  The project is being
managed by Mr. George Tucker, a graduate student at UMB.  Please call him, or
email/call me, if you have one or two of the specified type of encoder.  Of
course, due to our low funding level we are looking for a price that is
sufficiently lower than that given for new encoders.  :)

George Tucker
617-965-3408

ME:
-- 
sugarman@cs.umb.edu | 6172876077 univ | 6177313637 home | Standard Disclaimer
Boston Massachusetts USA

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60871
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Atlas revisited

  I found it very interesting that Atlas depended on pressure to
maintain tank geometry....leads me to the question: ? have any 
of the SSTO concepts explored pressurized tankage such that the
launch configuration would be significantly different from the
reentry one?  I have long been facinated by pnumatic structures
as conceived and built by Frei Otto and others, a "ballon" tank
SSTO sounds very clever. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60872
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
>not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
>think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
>
>Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
>larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
>they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste*
on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo, 
but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military,
scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have 
the money, why not?" approach.

It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
use grad students?

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60873
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: army in space

Last I had heard because of budget and such the Air Farce is the only "Space
Command" left.. The rest missions were generally given to the Air Farce..

Probably a good reason for me to transfer from the Army Guard to the Air
Guard..

I hate walking with a pack on my back, and how do you put on your application
for a job as a kitchen worker, that you have done a lot of KP (Kitchen
Police)..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60874
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <15APR199320340428@stdvax> abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
>In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>>There has been something bothering me while watching
>>NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
>>bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
>>they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
>>exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
>>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
>
>
>In pure speculation, I would guess cautions based on hazardous
>pre-launch ops would qualify.  Something like "Caution:  SRBs
>have just been armed."  

Also in pure speculation:

Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered.
   "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it"

Any problem where they decided a backup would handle it.

Any problem in an area that was not criticality 1,2,3..., that is, any
   problem in a system they decided they could do without.

I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is.

tom

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60875
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Into Infinity?(WAS:Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan?)

In <1qkn6rINNett@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

> In article <1993Apr15.170048.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> 
> >This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
> >States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K... Later, they went
> >on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.
> >
> >The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
> >airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
> >look at.

Exactly. Some of the SPACE:1999 effects remain first-rate even today. 
 
> They recycled a lot of models and theme music for UFO.  Some of the
> concepts even showed up in SPACE: 1999. 
> 

Later on, the Andersons tried to shed their reputation as creators of some
of the worst pseudo-scientific shows in TV history by flying "Into Infinity."
This was a one-off thing done as part of BBC's "educational SF" series "The
Day After Tomorrow." The Anderson episode dealt with a spaceship capable of
reaching the speed of light ("lightship Altares"), the four-man crew eventually 
journeyed into a black hole and ended up on the far side of the galaxy (I
think). I saw this as a 9-year-old back in 1976 and liked it very much, but
then again I was a fan of SPACE:1999 so I guess I was easily satisfied in those
days:-)
---
Does anyone know if "Into Infinity" has been released on video? I have some
SPACE:1999 shows on VHS and know that Thunderbirds etc. also are available in
England.
 
MARCU$
> 
>     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>   -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60876
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

>There is a guy in NASA Johnson Space Center  that might answer 
>your question. I do not have his name right now but if you follow 
>up I can dig that out for you.

Keesler, Loftus, Potter, Stansbery, Kubriek....?


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60878
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject: ORION test film

Is the film from the "putt-putt" test vehicle which used conventional
explosives as a proof-of-concept test, or another one?

---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60879
From: daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing/temporary orbit

In article <pgf.735012282@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:
|> 
|> >The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
|> >are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
|> >three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
|> >earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
|> >allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
|> >down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
|> >expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
|> >originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
|> >was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
|> >deceleration.
|> 
|> 
|> I should probably re-post this with another title, so that
|> the guys on the other thread would see that this is a practical
|> use of "temporary orbits..."
|> 
|> Another possible temporary orbit:
|> 
|> --
|> Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
|> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man
|> 
|> 

If you are really interested in these orbits and how they are obtained
you should try and find the following paper:

     Hiroshi Yamakawa, Jun'ichiro Kawaguchi, Nobuaki Ishii, 
     and Hiroki Matsuo, "A Numerical Study of Gravitational Capture
     Orbit in the Earth-Moon System," AAS-92-186, AAS/AIAA Spaceflight
     Mechanics Meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1992.

The references included in this paper are quite interesting also and 
include several that are specific to the HITEN mission itself. 

|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|
|                                 * _!!!!_ *                         |
| Steven Davis                   * /  \   \ *                        |
| daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov  *  (<o><o>)  *                       |  
|                               *  \>_db_</  *  McDonnell Douglas    |
|  - I don't represent           *   |vv|   *   Space Systems Company| 
|    anybody but myself. -        *  (__)  *    Houston Division     |
|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60880
From: jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

From article <C5owCB.n3p@world.std.com>, by tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker):
>>In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>>>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>>>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>>>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
> 
> Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered.
>    "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it"
> I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is.
> 
> tom


My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically
known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked
that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't
set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code
and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew
'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.

 - Jonathan



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60881
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: NASP

I have before me a pertinent report from the United States General
Accounting Office:

National Aero-Space Plane: Restructuring Future Research and Development
Efforts
December 1992
Report number GAO/NSIAD-93-71

In the back it lists the following related reports:

NASP: Key Issues Facing the Program (31 Mar 92) GAO/T-NSIAD-92-26

Aerospace Plane Technology: R&D Efforts in Japan and Australia
(4 Oct 91) GAO/NSIAD-92-5

Aerospace Plane Technology: R&D Efforts in Europe (25 July 91)
GAO/NSIAD-91-194

Aerospace Technology: Technical Data and Information on Foreign
Test Facilities (22 Jun 90) GAO/NSIAD-90-71FS

Investment in Foreign Aerospace Vehicle Research and Technological
Development Efforts (2 Aug 89) GAO/T-NSIAD-89-43

NASP: A Technology Development and Demonstration Program to Build
the X-30 (27 Apr 88) GAO/NSIAD-88-122


On the inside back cover, under "Ordering Information" it says

"The first copy of each GAO report is free.  . . .  Orders
may also be placed by calling (202)275-6241
"

Dani

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60882
From: jib@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov (J. I. Blackshear Jr.)
Subject: DSPSE (was Why Clementine?)

The SDIO has "contracted" with the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) to fly the Clementine Mission.  BTW we call it DSPSE (Deep Space Project Science Experiment).

The NRL is building the spacecraft, designing the detailed mission and doing the
integration and operations (with help from, JPL & Goddard & prob. some folks I
have left out...don't be mad).

I am on the TAMP (Trajectory Analysis & Mission Planning) team and am responsable
for the IV&V of the traj that Goddard/CSC are designing.

As for why SDIO is doing it, some of the reasons are:

   1)  the safety constraints are too tight to try to run the LIDAR in LEO

   2)  in LEO we don't get any new radiation data on the sensors, we will get
       that data on our 9 passages through the Van Allen (sp?) Belts

   3)  since we are going out there...why not piggy-back some general science

   4)  the intercept problem is a lot easied over LONG distances and LONG times

I am sure there are some things I have forgotten, and some I haven't been told
but, those are the reasons we all talk about.

-- 


                                             Jim Blackshear
                                             jib@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60883
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

> > Can these questions be answered for a previous
> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?

> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)
> p(au)          3.424346
> e              0.151899
> i              1.0988
> cap_omega(0) 243.5652
> W(0)         231.1607
> epoch       1977.04110

Thanks for the information!

I assume p is the semi-major axis and e the eccentricity.  The peri-
helion and aphelion are then given by p(1-e) and p(1+e), i.e., about
2.90 and 3.95 AU respectively.  For Jupiter, they are 4.95 and 5.45 AU.
If 1977 was after the temporary capture, this means that the comet
ended up in an orbit that comes no closer than 1 AU to Jupiter's --
which I take to be a rough indication of how far from Jupiter it could
get under Jupiter's influence.

> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
> 
> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto		"Remember the Golgafrinchans"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com					-- Pete Granger

This article is in the public domain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60884
From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks)
Subject: Re: Into Infinity?(WAS:Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan?)


In article <1993Apr18.171148.6367@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus 
Lindroos INF) writes:

>Later on, the Andersons tried to shed their reputation as creators of some
>of the worst pseudo-scientific shows in TV history by flying "Into Infinity."
>This was a one-off thing done as part of BBC's "educational SF" series "The
>Day After Tomorrow." The Anderson episode dealt with a spaceship capable of
>reaching the speed of light ("lightship Altares"), the four-man crew 
>eventually journeyed into a black hole and ended up on the far side of the 
>galaxy (I think). I saw this as a 9-year-old back in 1976 and liked it very 
>much, but then again I was a fan of SPACE:1999 so I guess I was easily 
>satisfied in those days:-)

Wow.  I was beginning to think that I had made that up.  I remember that
movie (it was about 1.5 hours long).  I don't think they ended up anywhere
in the known universe.  

I remember they got a message halfway out to Proxima Centauri, that Earth
transmitted a day after they launched, timed to catch up with them at the
halfway point.  I thought it was neat, I think I was all of 10 at the time.

>Does anyone know if "Into Infinity" has been released on video? I have some
>SPACE:1999 shows on VHS and know that Thunderbirds etc. also are available in
>England.
 
Space:1999 has just come out with 4 episodes released in American stores.
I will look for the Into Infinity show, I never did know that was the
name of it, I thought the show was called "the day after tomorrow", and
that was it.

-- 
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60885
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
that might just work.

Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60886
From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Subject: NAVSTAR positions

I've just read Richard Langley's latest "Navstar GPS Constellation Status".

It states that the latest satellite was placed in Orbit Plane Position C-3.
There is already one satellite in that position. I know that it's almost
ten years since that satellite was launched but it's still in operation so
why not use it until it goes off?

Why not instead place the new satellite at B-4 since that position is empty
and by this measure have an almost complete GPS-constellation
(23 out of 24)?

/Thomas
================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.     

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60887
From: uck@netcom.com (Tom Chamberlain)
Subject: Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space?

Has anyone heard of or Played Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space?

Does anyone know when it is expected to be released...?

Thanx, Tom.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60888
From: wmiler@nyx.cs.du.edu (Wyatt Miler)
Subject: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network Announcement


Posted to the Internet by wmiler@nyx.cs.du.edu
 
000062David42      041493003715
 
             The Lunar Tele-operation Model One (LTM1)
             =========================================
                        By David H. Mitchell
                          March 23, 1993
 
INTRODUCTION:
 
In order to increase public interest in space-based and lunar operations, a
real miniature lunar-like environment is being constructed on which to test
tele-operated models. These models are remotely-controlled by individuals
located world-wide using their personal computers, for EduTainment
purposes.
Not only does this provide a test-bed for simple tele-operation and
tele-presence activities but it also provides for the sharing of
information
on methods of operating in space, including, but not limited to, layout of
a
lunar colony, tele-operating machines for work and play, disseminating
educational information, providing contests and awards for creativity and
achievement and provides a new way for students worldwide to participate in
Twenty-First century remote learning methods.
 
Because of the nature of the LTM1 project, people of all ages, interests
and
skills can contribute scenery and murals, models and structures,
interfacing
and electronics, software and graphics. In operation LTM1 is an evolving
playground and laboratory that can be used by children, students and
professionals worldwide. Using a personal computer at home or a terminal at
a participating institution a user is able to tele-operate real models at
the
LTM1 base for experimental or recreational purposes. Because a real
facility
exists, ample opportunity is provided for media coverage of the
construction
of the lunar model, its operation and new features to be added as suggested
by the users themselves.
 
This has broad inherent interest for a wide range of groups:
 - tele-operations and virtual reality research
 - radio control, model railroad and ham radio operation
 - astronomy and space planetariums and science centers
 - art and theater
 - bbs and online network users
 - software and game developers
 - manufacturers and retailers of model rockets, cars and trains
 - children
 - the child in all of us
 
LTM1 OVERALL DESIGN:
 
A room 14 feet by 8 feet contains the base lunar layout. The walls are used
for murals of distant moon mountains, star fields and a view of the earth.
The "floor" is the simulated lunar surface. A global call for contributions
is hereby made for material for the lunar surface, and for the design and
creation of scale models of lunar colony elements, scenery, and
machine-lets.
 
 The LTM1 initial design has 3 tele-operated machinelets:
 1. An SSTO scale model which will be able to lift off, hover and land;
 2. A bulldozerlet which will be able to move about in a quarry area; and
 3. A moon-train which will traverse most of the simulated lunar surface.
 
 Each machinelet has a small TV camera utilizing a CCD TV chip mounted on
 it. A personal computer digitizes the image (including reducing picture
 content and doing data-compression to allow for minimal images to be sent
 to the operator for control purposes) and also return control signals.
 
The first machinelet to be set up will be the moon-train since model trains
with TV cameras built in are almost off-the-shelf items and control
electronics for starting and stopping a train are minimal. The user will
receive an image once every 1 to 4 seconds depending on the speed of their
data link to LTM1.
 
Next, an SSTO scale model with a CCD TV chip will be suspended from a
servo-motor operated wire frame mounted on the ceiling allowing for the
SSTO
to be controlled by the operator to take off, hover over the entire lunar
landscape and land.
 
Finally, some tank models will be modified to be CCD TV chip equipped
bulldozerlets. The entire initial LTM1 will allow remote operators
worldwide
to receive minimal images while actually operating models for landing and
takeoff, traveling and doing work. The entire system is based on
commercially
available items and parts that can be easily obtained except for the
interface electronics which is well within the capability of many advanced
ham radio operator and computer hardware/software developers.
 
By taking a graphically oriented communications program (Dmodem) and adding
a tele-operations screen and controls, the necessary user interface can be
provided in under 80 man hours.
 
PLAN OF ACTION:
 
The Diaspar Virtual Reality Network has agreed to sponsor this project by
providing a host computer network and Internet access to that network.
Diaspar is providing the 14 foot by 8 foot facility for actual construction
of the lunar model. Diaspar has, in stock, the electronic tanks that can be
modified and one CCD TV chip. Diaspar also agrees to provide "rail stock"
for the lunar train model. Diaspar will make available the Dmodem graphical
communications package and modify it for control of the machines-lets.
An initial "ground breaking" with miniature shovels will be performed for
a live photo-session and news conference on April 30, 1993. The initial
models will be put in place. A time-lapse record will be started for
historical purposes. It is not expected that this event will be completely
serious or solemn. The lunar colony will be declared open for additional
building, operations and experiments. A photographer will be present and
the photographs taken will be converted to .gif images for distribution
world-wide to major online networks and bbs's. A press release will be
issued
calling for contributions of ideas, time, talent, materials and scale
models
for the simulated lunar colony.
 
A contest for new designs and techniques for working on the moon will then
be
announced. Universities will be invited to participate, the goal being to
find instructors who wish to have class participation in various aspects of
the lunar colony model. Field trips to LTM1 can be arranged and at that
time
the results of the class work will be added to the model. Contributors will
then be able to tele-operate any contributed machine-lets once they return
to
their campus.
 
A monthly LTM1 newsletter will be issued both electronically online and via
conventional means to the media. Any major new tele-operated equipment
addition will be marked with an invitation to the television news media.
Having a large, real model space colony will be a very attractive photo
opportunity for the television community. Especially since the "action"
will
be controlled by people all over the world. Science fiction writers will be
invited to issue "challenges" to engineering and human factors students at
universities to build and operate the tele-operated equipment to perform
lunar tasks. Using counter-weight and pulley systems, 1/6 gravity may be
simulated to some extent to try various traction challenges.
 
The long term goal is creating world-wide interest, education,
experimentation
and remote operation of a lunar colony. LTM1 has the potential of being a
long
term global EduTainment method for space activities and may be the generic
example of how to teach and explore in many other subject areas not limited
to space EduTainment. All of this facilitates the kind of spirit which can
lead to a generation of people who are ready for the leap to the stars!
 
CONCLUSION:
 
EduTainment is the blending of education and entertainment. Anyone who has
ever enjoyed seeing miniatures will probably see the potential impact of a
globally available layout for recreation, education and experimentation
purposes. By creating a tele-operated model lunar colony we not only create
world-wide publicity, but also a method of trying new ideas that require
real
(not virtual) skills and open a new method for putting people's minds in
space.
 
 
MOONLIGHTERS:
 
"Illuminating the path of knowledge about space and lunar development."
The following people are already engaged in various parts of this work:
David42, Rob47, Dash, Hyson, Jzer0, Vril, Wyatt, The Dark One, Tiggertoo,
The Mad Hatter, Sir Robin, Jogden.
 
Come join the discussion any Friday night from 10:30 to midnight PST in
 
Diaspar Virtual Reality Network. Ideas welcome!
 
Internet telnet to: 192.215.11.1 or diaspar.com
 
(voice)  714-376-1776
(2400bd) 714-376-1200
(9600bd) 714-376-1234
 
Email inquiries to LTM1 project leader Jzer@Hydra.unm.edu
or directly to Jzer0 on Diaspar.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60889
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

I've seen a film of it, my memory may be faulty, but as I
remember it the vehicle was slightly over a meter long, with a
thick baseplate 30-40 cm in diameter. I think the narrative said
it was propelled by dynamite sticks. There were four detonations
within about 2 s, the second coming after about 2 m of flight in.
Max altitude seemed to be on the order of 50 m, but that is hard 
to judge.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60890
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> > Can these questions be answered for a previous
>> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?
> 
>> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)
>> p(au)          3.424346
>> e              0.151899
>> i              1.0988
>> cap_omega(0) 243.5652
>> W(0)         231.1607
>> epoch       1977.04110
> 
> 
>> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
>> 
>> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
> 
> Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> -- 
Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60891
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation

In article <C5HCBo.Joy@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The biggest problem with this is that all orbits are not alike.  It can
>actually be more expensive to reach a satellite from another orbit than
>from the ground.  

But with cheaper fuel from space based sources it will be cheaper to 
reach more orbits than from the ground.

Also remember, that the presence of a repair/supply facility adds value
to the space around it. If you can put your satellite in an orbit where it
can be reached by a ready source of supply you can make it cheaper and gain
benefit from economies of scale.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60892
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <1993Apr18.034101.21934@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>>I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
>>line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
>>wrap at this university. 
> 
>Dennis, I have worked on or written proposals worth tens of millions
>of $$. Customers included government (including NASA), for profit and
>non-profit companies. All expected a wrap (usually called a fee). Much
>of the work involved allocating and costing the work of subcontractors.
>The subcontractors where universities, for-profits, non-profits, and
>even some of the NASA Centers for the Commercialization of Space. ALL
>charged fees as part of the work. Down the street is one of the NASA
>commercialization centers; they charge a fee.
> 

You totally forgot the original post that you posted Allen. In that post
you stated that the "wrap" was on top of and in addition to any overhead.
Geez in this post you finally admit that this is not true.

>Now, I'm sure your a competent engineer Dennis, but you clearly lack
>experience in several areas. Your posts show that you don't understand
>the importance of integration in large projects. You also show a lack
>of understanding of costing efforts as shown by your belief that it
>is reasonable to charge incremental costs for everything. This isn't
>a flame, jsut a statement.

Come your little ol buns down here and you will find out who is doing
what and who is working on integration. This is simply an ad hominum
attack and you know it.

> 
>Your employer DOES charge a fee. You may not see it but you do.
>

Of course there is a fee. It is for administration. Geez Allen any
organization has costs but there is a heck of a difference in  legitimate
costs, such as libraries and other things that must be there to support
a program and "wrap" as you originally stated it.You stated that wrap
was on top of all of the overhead which a couple of sentences down you
say is not true. Which is it Allen?

>>>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>>>costing people how much fee they add to a project.
> 
>>I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
>>any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.
> 
>Well there you are Dennis. As I said, they simply include the fee in
>their overhead. Many seoparate the fee since the fee structure can
>change depending on the customer.
>

As you have posted on this subject Allen, you state that wrap is over and
above overhead and is a seperate charge. You admit here that this is wrong.
Nasa has a line item budget every year. I have seen it Allen. Get some
numbers from that detailed NASA budget and dig out the wrap numbers and then
howl to high heaven about it. Until you do that you are barking in the wind.

>>No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
>>of the Overhead capital of NASA. 
> 
>Integration, Dennis, isn't overhead.
> 
>>Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
>>better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.
>

Integration could be done better at the centers. Apollo integration was 
done here at Msfc and that did not turn out so bad. The philosophy of
Reston is totally wrong Allen. There you have a bunch of people who are
completely removed from the work that they are trying to oversee. There
is no way that will ever work. It has never worked in any large scale project
that it was ever tried on. Could you imagine a Reston like set up for 
Apollo?

>Dennis, Reston has been the only NASA agency working to reduce costs. When
>WP 02 was hemoraging out a billion $$, the centers you love so much where
>doing their best to cover it up and ignore the problem. Reston was the
>only place you would find people actually interested in solving the
>problems and building a station.
>

Oh you are full of it Allen on this one. I agree that JSC screwed up big.
They should be responsible for that screw up and the people that caused it
replaced. To make a stupid statement like that just shows how deep your
bias goes. Come to MSFC for a couple of weeks and you will find out just
how wrong you really are. Maybe not, people like you believe exactly what
they want to believe no matter  what the facts are contrary to it. 

>>Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
>>at a place where everything is overhead.
> 
>When you have a bit more experience Dennis, you will realize that
>integration isn't overhead. It is the single most important part
>of a successful large scale effort.
>

I agree that integration is the single most important part of a  successful
large scale effort. What I completly disagree with is seperating that
integration function from  the people that are doing the work. It is called
leadership Allen. That is what made Apollo work. Final responsibility for
the success of Apollo was held by less than 50 people. That is leadership
and responsibility. There is neither when you have any organization set up
as Reston is. You could take the same people and move them to JSC or MSFC
and they could do a much better job. Why did it take a year for Reston to
finally say something about the problem? If they were on site and part of the
process then the problem would have never gotten out of hand in the first place.

There is one heck of a lot I do not know Allen, but one thing I do know is that
for a project to be successful you must have leadership. I remember all of the
turn over at Reston that kept SSF program in shambles for years do you? It is
lack of responsibility and leadership that is the programs problem. Lack of
leadership from the White House, Congress and at Reston. Nasa is only a
symptom of a greater national problem. You are so narrowly focused in your
efforts that you do not see this.

>>Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
>>demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
>>selective with the facts again.
> 
>The story you refer to said that some NASA people blamed it on
>Congress. Suprise suprise. The fact remains that it is the centers
>you support so much who covered up the overheads and wouldn't address
>the problems until the press published the story.
> 
>Are you saying the Reston managers where wrong to get NASA to address
>the overruns? You approve of what the centers did to cover up the overruns?
>

No, I am saying that if they were located at JSC it never would have 
happened in the first place.

>>If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
>>of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
>>"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
>>for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
>>blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.
> 
>You should know Dennis that NASA doesn't include transport costs for
>resuply. That comes from the Shuttle budget. What they where saying
>is that operational costs could be cut in half plus transport.
> 
>>Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
>>to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
>>do so.
> 
>I do hope you can find the time to tell us just why it was wrong of
>Reston to ask that the problems with WP 02 be addressed.
> 
I have the time to reitereate one more timet that if the leadership that is
at reston was on site at JSC the problem never would have happened, totally
ignoring the lack of leadership of congress. This many headed hydra that
has grown up at NASA is the true problem of the Agency and to try to 
change the question to suit you and your bias is only indicative of
your position.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60893
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In <1q1kia$gg8@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>In article <19930408.043740.516@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>In <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.
>It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more
>then a science project.
  Bingo.
>B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to
>re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?
 Nothing evil at all. There's no actual harm in what they're doing, only
how they represent it.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60894
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In <1q77ku$av6@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
>either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
>not releasing data.
   We publish plenty kiddo,you just have to look.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60895
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)

In article <1993Apr15.131954.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers...
>Sorry, Mark.

I think I can. Largely as a result of efforts by people reading this group
writing letters and making phone calls the following has happened:

1. NASA reprogrammed funds to keep NASP alive in 1991.
2. Efforts to kill DC-X and the SSRT progam where twice twarted
   (Feb. and June of last year).
3. Gouldin kept his job in spite of heavy lobbying against him.

This may not be what Mark was thinking of but it shows that the
readers of sci.space DO have power and influence.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60896
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Re: Astronomy Program

In article <28641@galaxy.ucr.edu> datadec@ucrengr.ucr.edu 
(kevin marcus) writes:

>Are there any public domain or shareware astronomy programs which will
>map out the sky at any given time, and allow you to locate planets, nebulae,
>and so forth?  If so, is there any ftp site where I can get one?


   There are several star map programs available.  Your
   job is to choose that you like.  Try anonymous-FTP
   from:

	ftp.funet.fi:pub/astro/pc/stars
			       pc/solar
                               mac
			       amiga
			       atari
   
					regards,
					-Veikko-	

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60897
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

   >This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought not
   >to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
   >think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
   >
   >Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
   >larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
   >they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.

Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
cooperation.

Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
the size of that multiplier :->).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60898
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <1993Apr18.224414.784@head-cfa.harvard.edu> jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:

   My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically
   known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked
   that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't
   set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code
   and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew
   'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.

Good grief. And I thought the Shuttle software was known for being
well-engineered. If this is actually the case, every member of the
programming team should be taken out and shot.

(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
maturity, I strongly doubt that this is the case).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60899
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

Gene Wright (gene@theporch.raider.net) wrote:
: Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
: who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
: Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
: to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I
throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that
you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion.

This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which 
should be one of NASA's primary goals.

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

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60900
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr18.014305.28536@sfu.ca>, Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> In article <C5nGxq.663@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer,
> henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:
> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
> >the film continuously repeating.
> 
> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
> month with my wife, who was also working at General Atomic at the time.
> Once again netnews has enriched my life.

Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
would have caught my attention instantly.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60901
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Vast Bandwidth Over-runs on NASA thread (was Re: NASA "Wraps")

In article <18APR199313560620@judy.uh.edu>, Dennis writes about a
zillion lines in response to article <1993Apr18.034101.21934@iti.org>,
in which Allen wrote a zillion lines in response to article
<17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu>, in which Dennis wrote another zillion
lines in response to Allen.

Hey, can it you guys. Take it to email, or talk.politics.space, or
alt.flame, or alt.music.pop.will.eat.itself.the.poppies.are.on.patrol,
or anywhere, but this is sci.space. This thread lost all scientific
content many moons ago.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60902
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1quh78INNf45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
>> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display...
>> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
>> month...
>
>Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
>it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
>but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
>would have caught my attention instantly.

It wasn't especially prominent, as I recall.  However, quite possibly it's
no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60903
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City


AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

Anyone want to go?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60904
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Space Clippers launched



>  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY

When I first saw this, I thought for a second that it was a headline from
The Star about the pliers found in the SRB recently.

Y'know, sometimes they have wire-cutters built in :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60905
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            April 16, 1993

1.  The Magellan mission at Venus continues normally, gathering gravity
data which provides measurement of density variations in the upper
mantle which can be correlated to surface topography.  Spacecraft
performance is nominal.

2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from
the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.

3.  No significant activities are expected next week, as preparations
for aerobraking continue on schedule.

4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60906
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Space class for teachers near Chicago

I am posting this for a friend without internet access. Please inquire
to the phone number and address listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier"
Sponsored by the Planetary Studies Foundation

The Planetary Studies Foundation is sponsoring a one week class for
teachers called "Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier." The class will be
held at the Sheraton Suites in Elk Grove, Illinois from June 14 through
June 18. Participants who complete the program can earn two semester
hours of graduate credit from Aurora College. Please note that while the
class is intended for teachers, it is not restricted to teachers.

The class, which is being cosponsored by the United States Space
Foundation, will teach how to use space exploration as a teaching tool
to get students excited about learning and interested in science.

Classroom topics to be covered by the class include:
     > Living in Space
     > The Space Shuttle
     > The Space Station
     > NASA Spinoffs that Benefit Society
     > Principles of Astrodynamics/Aeronautics
     > The Solar System

There will also be simulated Zero-G training in an underwater space
station simulation, model rocket launches, observing sessions at the
Harper College Observatory, and field trips to the Adler Planetarium and
the Museum of Science and Industry.

Featured speakers include Jerry Brown of the Colorado based United
States Space Foundation and Debbie Brown of the NASA Lewis Research
Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Additional instructors will be provided by
the Planetary Studies Foundation.

The social highlight of the class will be a dinner banquet featuring
Space Shuttle Payload Specialist Byron Lichtenberg, currently President
of Payload Systems, Inc. Lichtenberg was a member of the crew of STS-9
which flew in November 1983. The banquet is scheduled for Thursday, June
17.

The registration fee includes transportation for field trips, materials,
continental breakfasts, lunches, and the special dinner banquet. Guest
tickets for the dinner banquet are also available.  There is an
additional charge to receive the two hours of graduate credit. For any
additional information about the class, contact the Science Learning
Center at (708) 359-7913.

Or write to:
Planetary Studies Foundation
1520 W. Algonquin Rd.
Palatine, IL 60067

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60907
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Soviet space book

     I have received my copies of Cosmonautics 1990 and
Cosmonautics 1991, as well as Soviet Space 1990 and Space
Station [MIR] Handbook from Aerospace Ambassadors with no
problem.
     I'm getting ready to FAX them some material in Huntsville,
and I'll include a printout of your inquiry.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |  
| Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60908
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Space on other nets

   We run "SpaceNews & Views" on our STAREACH BBS, a local
operation running WWIV software with the capability to link to
over 1500 other BBS's in the U.S.A. and Canada through WWIVNet.
   Having just started this a couple of months ago, our sub us
currently subscribed by only about ten other boards, but more
are being added.
   We get our news articles re on Internet, via ftp from NASA
sites, and from a variety of aerospace related periodicals. We
get a fair amount of questions on space topics from students
who access the system.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |  
| Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60909
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
> With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
> by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
> that might just work.
> 
> Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
> who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
> to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
> 
> --
>   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
> theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
====
If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
in Australia..
Anybody game for a contest!

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60910
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr19.144427.17399@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> Gene Wright (gene@theporch.raider.net) wrote:
> : Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
> : who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> : Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
> : to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
> 
> I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I
> throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that
> you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion.
> 
> This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which 
> should be one of NASA's primary goals.
> 
> -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
> 
>      "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator


Also would maybe get the Russians Involved. After all they do have the resources
to do it in part.. But they need the capital and the goal..

I wonder if renting the russians resources would be a disqualification?


==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60911
From: claice@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Farmer Ted)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

> There is this buy at NASA Langley...




YES! Give me his name I would greatly appreciate it.



Rich

"The Earth is a cradle of the mind.  But, we cannot live forever in a cradle"
                         K.E. Tsiolkovski 
			 Father of Russian Astronautics

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60912
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:


>AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
>May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

>Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

>Anyone want to go?

>pat

I got something in the mail from AIAA about it.  Cost is $75.
Speakers include John Pike, Hohn Young, and Ian Pryke.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60913
From: daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

In article <1quule$5re@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|> 
|> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
|> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.
|> 
|> Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????
|> 
|> Anyone want to go?
|> 
|> pat

Here are some selected excerpts of the invitation/registration form they
sent me. Retyped without permission, all typo's are mine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Cost Lunar Access: A one-day conference to explore the means and 
benefits of a rejuvenated human lunar program.

Friday, May 7, 1993
Hyatt Regency - Crystal City Hotel
Arlington, VA

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE
The Low-Cost Lunar Access conference will be a forum for the exchange of
ideas on how to initiate and structure an affordable human lunar program.
Inherent in such low-cost programs is the principle that they be 
implemented rapidly and meet their objectives within a short time
frame.

[more deleted]

CONFERENCE PROGRAM (Preliminary)

In the Washington Room:

  9:00 - 9:10 a.m.     Opening Remarks
    Dr. Alan M. Lovelace

  9:10 - 9:30 a.m.     Keynote Address
    Mr. Brian Dailey

  9:30 - 10:00 a.m.    U.S. Policy Outlook
    John Pike, American Federation of Scientists

  A discussion of the prospects for the introduction of a new low-cost
  lunar initiative in view of the uncertain direction the space
  program is taking.

  10:00 - 12:00 noon   Morning Plenary Sessions

  Presentations on architectures, systems, and operational concepts.
  Emphasis will be on mission approaches that produce significant
  advancements beyond Apollo yet are judged to be affordable in the
  present era of severely constrained budgets


In the Potomac Room

  12:00 - 1:30 p.m.    Lunch
    Guest Speaker: Mr. John W. Young,
    NASA Special Assistant and former astronaut

In the Washington Room

  1:30 - 2:00 p.m.     International Policy Outlook
    Ian Pryke (invited)
    ESA, Washington Office

  The prevailing situation with respect to international space 
  commitments, with insights into preconditions for European 
  entry into new agreements, as would be required for a cooperative
  lunar program.

  2:00 - 3:30 p.m.     Afternoon Plenary Sessions

  Presentations on scientific objectives, benefits, and applications.
  Emphasis will be placed on the scientific and technological value
  of a lunar program and its timeliness.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a registration form and the fee is US$75.00. The mail address
is 

     American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
     Dept. No. 0018
     Washington, DC 20073-0018

and the FAX No. is: 

     (202) 646-7508

or it says you can register on-site during the AIAA annual meeting 
and on Friday morning, May 7, from 7:30-10:30


Sounds interesting. Too bad I can't go.

|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|
|                                 * _!!!!_ *                         |
| Steven Davis                   * /  \   \ *                        |
| daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov  *  (<o><o>)  *                       |  
|                               *  \>_db_</  *  McDonnell Douglas    |
|  - I don't represent           *   |vv|   *   Space Systems Company| 
|    anybody but myself. -        *  (__)  *    Houston Division     |
|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60914
From: xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Space Station radio commercial

A brief political/cultural item.

Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with
a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).  
Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond
jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines.

This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project.
Didn't catch the advertiser.

Guess they're pulling out all the stops.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60915
From: xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Science News article on Federal R&D

Just a pointer to the article in the current Science News article
on Federal R&D funding.

Very briefly, all R&D is being shifted to gaining current 
competitive advantage from things like military and other work that
does not have as much commercial utility.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60916
From: schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1993Apr19.130503.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
|> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
|> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
|> > that might just work.
|> > 
|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
|> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
|> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
|> > 
|> > --
|> >   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
|> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
|> ====
|> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
|> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
|> in Australia..
|> Anybody game for a contest!
|> 
|> ==
|> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!

Peter F. Schaefer

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60917
From: fleice_mike@tandem.com (Mike Fleice)
Subject: Last call: S/W wizard position at Tandem (Cupertino CA)

Well, we got some responses and are doing some interviews with interesting
responders. However, just in case the other posting was overlooked by an
incredibly talented person ... Mea Culpa for posting this here for Mike,
but we're looking for someone special:

   Tandem Computers is currently looking for a software wizard to help
 us architect & implement a fault-tolerant generalized instrumentation
 subsystem as part of our proprietary operating system kernel (TNS
 Kernel). The TNS Kernel is a proprietary, loosely-coupled parallel,
 message-based operating system. The TNS Kernel has wide connectivity
 to open standards.
   In this key individual contributor role, you will work with other
 developers working on various components of the Transaction Management
 Facility.
   Your background needs to encompass some of the following 4 categories
 (3 of 4 would be excellent):
   Category 1. Math: Working knowledge of statistics, real analysis, as
 used in experimental physics or chemistry, or in engineering.
   Category 2. Working knowledge of telemetry issues-- i.e. time series,
 autocorrelation, and statistical correlation of data streams.
   Category 3. Integration & Test -- Instrumentation of systems under test,
 i.e. payloads, flight modules, etc.
   Category 4: Software Engineering: programming skills, algorithms, and
 systems software techniques.

   Please send your resume to Mike Fleice, Tandem Computers 10555
 Ridgeview Ct., LOC 100-27, Cupertino, CA 95014-0789; Fax (408) 285-0813;
 or e-mail fleice_mike@tandem.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60918
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:
> In article <1quule$5re@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> |> 
> |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.
> |> 
> |> Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????
> Here are some selected excerpts of the invitation/registration form they
> sent me. Retyped without permission, all typo's are mine.

Thanks for typing that in, Steven.  Sounds like a "fall back and
regroup" strategy session.

I wanted to add that my copy of the brochure arrived with a flattering
cover letter:

"Invitations are being extended to those who have demonstrated a
strong committment to space program development and have been
influential in its advancement.  We sincerely hope you will be able to
attend."

Wow! I wonder which of my contributions to the conquest of space
convinced them to send me this letter?

I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes and ears
there...

Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
higgins@fnal.fnal.gov |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
higgins@fnal.Bitnet   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60919
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Science News article on Federal R&D

In article <C5r2DK.764@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
> Just a pointer to the article in the current Science News article
> on Federal R&D funding.
> 
> Very briefly, all R&D is being shifted to gaining current 
> competitive advantage from things like military and other work that
> does not have as much commercial utility.
> -- 
> Chuck Divine

Gulp.

[Disclaimer:  This opinion is mine and does not represent the views of
Fermilab, Universities Research Association, the Department of Energy,
or the 49th Ward Regular Science Fiction Organization.]
 
-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60920
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

> Keesler, Loftus, Potter, Stansbery, Kubriek....?

I gues it is Keesler. The others do not ring the bell but they might be 
involved as well. Sometime ago Keesler was here at Langley teaching 
a course on space debris and, if my memory does not fai,l I think there
was even a reference to a book on the subject.

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60921
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Cold Gas tanks for Sounding Rockets

In article <3918@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rdl1@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Lorenz) writes:
   >Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
   >for sounding rockets?

   Well, first you work out how much cold gas you need, then make the
   tanks big enough.

Our sounding rocket payload, with telemetry, guidance, etc. etc. and a
telescope cluster, weighs around 1100 pounds.  It uses freon jets for
steering and a pulse-width-modulated controller for alignment (ie
during our eight minutes in space, the jets are pretty much
continuously firing on a ~10% duty cycle or so...).  The jets also
need to kill residual angular momentum from the spin stabilization, and
flip the payload around to look at the Sun.

We have two freon tanks, each holding ~5 liters of freon (I'm speaking
only from memory of the last flight).  The ground crew at WSMR choose how
much freon to use based on some black-magic algorithm.  They have
extra tank modules that just bolt into the payload stack.

This should give you an idea of the order of magnitude for cold gas 
quantity.  If you really need to know, send me email and I'll try to get you
in touch with our ground crew people.

Cheers,
Craig

--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60922
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Stereo Pix of planets?

Can anyone tell me where I might find stereo images of planetary and
planetary satellite surfaces?  GIFs preferred, but any will do.  I'm
especially interested in stereos of the surfaces of Phobos, Deimos, Mars
and the Moon (in that order).
  Thanks. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60923
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:

   Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
   who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a
   year. 

And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly
likely to involve more than just the lunar environment! 

"Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they
all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents."

"Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've
got a tank!  Man the guns!"

One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that
sort of environment.....

Greg.

(I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is
that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness
military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a
reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk
proposition.)


--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60924
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
>May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

>Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

A good summary has been posted (thanks), but I wanted to add another comment.
I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
Anyone else know anything on this angle?

Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60925
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In article <19930419.062802.166@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
|In <1q77ku$av6@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
|>The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
|>either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
|>not releasing data.
|   We publish plenty kiddo,you just have to look.


Never said you didn't publish, merely that there is data you don't
publish,  and that no-one scoriates you for those cases.  

IBM research  publishes plenty, it's why you ended up  with 2 Nobel
prizes in the last 10 years,  but that some projects are deemed
company confidential.  ATT Bell Labs,  keeps lots of stuff private,
Like Karamankars algorithm.  Private moeny is entitled to do what
it pleases, within the bounds of Law,  and For all the keepers of the
temple of SCience,  should please shove their pointy little heads
up their Conically shaped Posterior Orifices.   

pat

	who just read the SA article on Karl Fehrabend(sp???)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60926
From: jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch)
Subject: *** HELP  I NEED SOME ADDRESSES ***


Hi all,

    I'm trying to get mailing addresses for the following
companies.  Specifically, I need addresses for their personnel
offices or like bureau.  The companies are:

	- AMROC
	- Orbital Sciences Corp. (sp?)
	- Spacehab, Inc.  (I know this one is somewhere in 
		 	   Seattle, WA, or at least part of it is.)
	- Space Industries, Inc.  (Somewhere in Houston)
	- Space Enterprises Inc.

If anybody could point me in the right direction on this, I
would be most appreciative.  I prefer an email response, but I
will post a summary if sufficient interest exists.

Thanks,

Mitch-------------------------------->jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60927
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1993Apr20.001757.7543@bby.com.au>, gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
> 
>>    Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>>    who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a
>>    year. 
> 
> And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly
> likely to involve more than just the lunar environment! 
> 
> "Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they
> all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents."
> 
> "Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've
> got a tank!  Man the guns!"
> 
> One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that
> sort of environment.....
> 
> Greg.
> 
> (I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is
> that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness
> military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a
> reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk
> proposition.)
> -
> Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia

Hey!  My dad has an old hangar and Judy has some old rockets in her attic,
let's put on a Lunar program! . . .  Sounds good, but . . .
Let's play a game - What would be a reasonable reward?  What companies would
have a reasonable shot at pulling off such a feat?  Just where in the
budget would the reward come from?  Should there be a time limit?  Would a
straight cash money award be enough or should we throw in say . . . 
exclusive mining rights for the first fifty years? You get the idea.

I'd like to play but I don't have a clue to the answers.

Tom Freebairn   | He who refuses to understand math
                | will probably never get his checkbook figured out.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60928
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Double sonic booms.

Every time you read about a shuttle landing they mention the double sonic  
booms.  Having taken various relevant classes, I have several ideas of where  
they come from, but none of them are very convincing.  Exactly what causes  
them?  Are they a one time pheneomenon, or a constant one like the supersonic  
shockwave that is constantly produced by a plane, but you hear only when it  
goes over you?

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60929
From: jhwitten@cs.ruu.nl (Jurriaan Wittenberg)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov 
(Ron Baalke) writes:

>Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager
>
>                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
>                            April 16, 1993
>
>
>2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from
>the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.
Sorry I think I missed a bit of info on this Transition Experiment. What is it?

>4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
>interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.
Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??

BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am
looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something
to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)

ok that's it for now. See you guys around,
Jurriaan.
 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|----=|=-<- - - - - - JHWITTEN@CS.RUU.NL- - - - - - - - - - - - ->-=|=----|
|----=|=-<-Jurriaan Wittenberg- - -Department of ComputerScience->-=|=----|
|____/|\_________Utrecht_________________The Netherlands___________/|\____|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60930
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: Looking for a little research help


Hi,
  
  I'm writing a science fiction script and I'm looking for some
answers to questions regarding the Moon and Earth. My starting point
is an impossible situation.  [I checked with a professor at berkeley
and his response was a VERY helpful "can't happen".] If you enjoy
playing with unusual ideas and are willing answer some questions
please contact me via e-mail (jennise@dgi.com).

  I get extremely annoyed when screen and tele-plays ignore basic
facts about computers that I'm determined to be as scientifically
accurate as I can.


  Sorry for being vague, but I'd like to protect my idea as much as I
can until I'm ready to sell it (hopefully).

Jennise

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60931
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: Looking for a little research help [ addendum]

Sorry but I forgot this ps.

Right now my sight is getting news about two weeks behind so it's 
kind of necessary (to me) that any responses be sent to me directly.


Thanks a lot

Jennise
     jennise@dgi.com  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60932
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Ariane v.56 Mission Data



ARIANESPACE FLIGHT 56

(Flight V.56 was originally intended to carry the Hughes HS-601 series 
Galaxy IV satellite, but the payload was withdrawn just prior to flight.)

The 56th Ariane launch is now scheduled to place the ASTRA 1C and ARSENE 
satellites into an improved geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), with 
inclination reduced to 5 degrees and apogee altitude increased by 150 km.
This will be the 28th launch of an Ariane 4 and the first in the 42L 
configuration, with 2 liquid strap-on boosters (PAL).  It will be launched
from the newly refurbished Ariane launch complex ELA 2, in Kourou - French 
Guiana.

The launch vehicle performance requirement for this mission is 3,147 kg
of which 2,944 kg represents the satellite mass.  The total vehicle mass
at liftoff is 361,778 kg.


Required Orbit Characteristics:
  Perigee Altitude ..... 200 km
  Apogee Altitude ...... 36,160 km at injection 
  Inclination ..........   5 degrees


The Ariane 42L lift-off for Flight 56 is scheduled on Thursday,
April 29, 1993, as soon as possible within the following launch 
window:

     Kourou Time        GMT (04/30/93)      Washington, DC
     21:52 - 22:50      00:52 - 01:50       20:52 - 21:50


LAUNCH VEHICLE:

Ariane 42L.  This is a three-stage liquid fueled launcher with two liquid 
fueled strap-on boosters.  The first stage (L220) is built by Aerospatiale,
and is powered by 4 liquid fueled Viking V engines.  The second stage (L33)
is built by MBB Erno and is powered by a single Viking IV engine.  Both the
Viking IV and V engines are manufactured by SEP.  The first and second stages
use a biliquid UH25/N2O4 fuel. The third stage (H10) is built by Aerospatiale,
and is powered by a cryogenic H2/O2 fueled HM-7B engine built by SEP. The two
strap-on boosters (PAL) are each powered by a Viking VI engine, also built 
by SEP, which use the same biliquid fuel as the first and second stages.  
The fully assembled launch vehicle stands 56 meters high on the pad.  
It uses the Type 01 Ariane Short payload fairing.


Flight Profile:

 +02:21  Liquid strap-on booster jettison
 +03:11  First stage separation
 +03:18  Second stage ignition
 +04:10  Fairing jettison
 +05:21  Second stage separation
 +05:26  Third stage ignition
 +17:30  Third stage shutdown / orbit injection
 +19:56  ASTRA 1C separation
 +22:36  Cyclade adapter separation
 +24:26  ARSENE separation
 +28:47  End of Ariane mission 56


PAYLOADS:

ASTRA 1C is the third spacecraft in the fleet of "Societe Europeenne
des Satellites" to broadcast direct TV to homes all over Europe.
Built by Hughes, it will be the second HS-601 launched by Ariane.

  Total mass at lift-off .... 2,790 kg
  Mass at GEO insertion ..... 1,700 kg
  Dry mass .................. 1,180 kg     
  On-board power ............ 3,300 W (end of life)
  Nominal lifetime .......... 15 years     
  Span of solar panels ...... 21 m
  On-Orbit position ......... 19.2 degrees east, over Africa.

 Transmission capacity:  
   34 channels in Ku-band, via 18 transponders.

 In-flight operations:
   Solar array deployment ............ about 6 days after lift-off
   First of 3 apogee motor firings ... about 40 hours after lift-off 
                                       at 4th apogee


ARSENE is the first spacecraft built by the European Space Industry
for the benefit of the world amateur radio community.  

  Total mass at lift-off .... 154 kg
  Mass at GEO insertion .....  98 kg
  Dry mass ..................  97 kg     
  On-board power ............ 42 W (end of life)
  Nominal lifetime .......... 3 years     
  Spacecraft dimensions ..... 1.1m x .96m
  Orbital parameters ........ 20000/36000 km, 0 inclination, period 17:30.

 Transmission capacity:  
   S-band:  1 transponder at 2.446 ghz
   VHF/UHF: 145/435 mhz 


LAUNCH COVERAGE:

All Ariane missions are broadcast live via satellite from Kourou. 
Coverage begins at 30 minutes before launch and continues until 
all payloads have been deployed.  This mission will likely be carried
in the US on Galaxy 6, however it could be Galaxy 7 or another satellite.
(What is the European satellite normally used for Ariane coverage?)
 

-{ Dean Adams }-


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60933
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Stereo Pix of planets?y

In article <1993Apr20.010326.8634@csus.edu>, arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler) writes:
> Can anyone tell me where I might find stereo images of planetary and
> planetary satellite surfaces?  GIFs preferred, but any will do.  I'm
> especially interested in stereos of the surfaces of Phobos, Deimos, Mars
> and the Moon (in that order).
>   Thanks. 


ames.arc.nasa.gov not sure what subdirectory thou..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

PS: I know it has a GIF area as well as SPACE and other info..


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60934
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In <1993Apr20.001428.724@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>Let's play a game - What would be a reasonable reward?  What companies would
>have a reasonable shot at pulling off such a feat?  Just where in the
>budget would the reward come from?  Should there be a time limit?  Would a
>straight cash money award be enough or should we throw in say . . .
>exclusive mining rights for the first fifty years? You get the idea.
 A cash award is OK. A time limit would be nice. You can't give away
mining rights (assuming there's anything to mine) because you don't own
them.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60935
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu> schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:

>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 

>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!

Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
more than needed.

This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60936
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?

I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes"
such as the following:

Large Corp.
Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?)
Large Government (GNP and such)
Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?)
Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?)
Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)

The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ??

Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ??
Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class
winners..
More fair?

There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events,
umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want
to risk thier own lives let them do it?).

Any other ideas??
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60937
From: rick@trystro.uucp (Richard Nickle)
Subject: Re: How to read sci.space without netnews

In article <C5LJG5.17n.1@cs.cmu.edu> mwm+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Maimone) writes:
>In article <734975852.F00001@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>>If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
>>but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
>>feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.	
>
>	Kudos to Mark for his generous offer, but there already exists a
>large (email-based) forwarding system for sci.space posts:  Space Digest.
>It mirrors sci.space exactly, and provides simple two-way communication.
>
I think Mark was talking about making it available to people who didn't
have email in the first place.

If anybody in the Boston area wants a sci.space feed by honest-to-gosh UUCP
(no weird offline malreaders), let me know.  I'll also hand out logins to
anyone who wants one, especially the Boston Chapter of NSS (which I keep forgetting
to re-attend).

>Questions, comments to space-request@isu.isunet.edu
>-- 
>Mark Maimone				phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
>Carnegie Mellon Computer Science	email: mwm@cmu.edu


-- 
richard nickle		rick@trystro.uucp	617-625-7155 v.32/v.42bis
			think!trystro!rick	somerville massachusetts

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60938
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
says:
>In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon
><SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
>>not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
>>think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
>>Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
>>larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
>>they will simply be able to afford more stuff.
>
>If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
>economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste*
>on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
>but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military,
>scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have
>the money, why not?" approach.

I was assuming that there won't be a moon base unless it makes a
profit, actually.  If it does, well, that gives a larger GNP which
leads to being able to spend more money on your military, including
gosh-wow space stuff.  (assuming it's profitable, rather than paying
for itself.)
>
>It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
>that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
>Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
>years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
>levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
>put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
>use grad students?

You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.

Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
be significant commerical activity on the Moon?

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60939
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <schumach.734984753@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Would the sub-orbital version be suitable as-is (or "as-will-be") for use
>as a reuseable sounding rocket?

DC-X as is today isn't suitable for this. However, the followon SDIO
funds will. A reusable sounding rocket was always SDIO's goal.

>Thank Ghod! I had thought that Spacelifter would definitely be the
>bastard Son of NLS.

So did I. There is a lot going on now and some reports are due soon 
which should be very favorable. The insiders have been very bush briefing
the right people and it is now paying off.

However, public support is STILL critical. In politics you need to keep
constant pressure on elected officials.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60940
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <ugo62B8w165w@angus.mi.org> dragon@angus.mi.org writes:

>Exactly when will the hover test be done, 

Early to mid June.

>and will any of the TV
>networks carry it.  I really want to see that...

If they think the public wants to see it they will carry it. Why not
write them and ask? You can reach them at:


                          F: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA


ABC "World News Tonight"                 "Face the Nation"
7 West 66th Street                       CBS News
New York, NY 10023                       2020 M Street, NW
212/887-4040                             Washington, DC 20036
                                         202/457-4321

Associated Press                         "Good Morning America"
50 Rockefeller Plaza                     ABC News
New York, NY 10020                       1965 Broadway
National Desk (212/621-1600)             New York, NY 10023
Foreign Desk (212/621-1663)              212/496-4800
Washington Bureau (202/828-6400)
                                         Larry King Live TV
"CBS Evening News"                       CNN
524 W. 57th Street                       111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
New York, NY 10019                       Washington, DC 20001
212/975-3693                             202/898-7900

"CBS This Morning"                       Larry King Show--Radio
524 W. 57th Street                       Mutual Broadcasting
New York, NY 10019                       1755 So. Jefferson Davis Highway
212/975-2824                             Arlington, VA 22202
                                         703/685-2175
"Christian Science Monitor"
CSM Publishing Society                   "Los Angeles Times"
One Norway Street                        Times-Mirror Square
Boston, MA 02115                         Los Angeles, CA 90053
800/225-7090                             800/528-4637

CNN                                      "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
One CNN Center                           P.O. Box 2626
Box 105366                               Washington, DC 20013
Atlanta, GA 30348                        703/998-2870
404/827-1500
                                         "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
CNN                                      WNET-TV
Washington Bureau                        356 W. 58th Street
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW             New York, NY 10019
Washington, DC 20001                     212/560-3113
202/898-7900

"Crossfire"                              NBC News
CNN                                      4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW             Washington, DC 20036
Washington, DC 20001                     202/885-4200
202/898-7951                             202/362-2009 (fax)

"Morning Edition/All Things Considered"  
National Public Radio                    
2025 M Street, NW                        
Washington, DC 20036                     
202/822-2000                             

United Press International
1400 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202/898-8000

"New York Times"                         "U.S. News & World Report"
229 W. 43rd Street                       2400 N Street, NW
New York, NY 10036                       Washington, DC 20037
212/556-1234                             202/955-2000
212/556-7415

"New York Times"                         "USA Today"
Washington Bureau                        1000 Wilson Boulevard
1627 Eye Street, NW, 7th Floor           Arlington, VA 22229
Washington, DC 20006                     703/276-3400
202/862-0300

"Newsweek"                               "Wall Street Journal"
444 Madison Avenue                       200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10022                       New York, NY 10281
212/350-4000                             212/416-2000

"Nightline"                              "Washington Post"
ABC News                                 1150 15th Street, NW
47 W. 66th Street                        Washington, DC 20071
New York, NY 10023                       202/344-6000
212/887-4995

"Nightline"                              "Washington Week In Review"
Ted Koppel                               WETA-TV
ABC News                                 P.O. Box 2626
1717 DeSales, NW                         Washington, DC 20013
Washington, DC 20036                     703/998-2626
202/887-7364

"This Week With David Brinkley"
ABC News
1717 DeSales, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/887-7777

"Time" magazine
Time Warner, Inc.
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10020
212/522-1212

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60941
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Jemison on Star Trek

   I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
"Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.

Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60942
From: ldaddari@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Larry D'Addario)
Subject: Re: Russian Email Contacts.

It is usually possible to reach people at IKI (Institute for Space
Research) in Moscow by writing to

	IKIMAIL@esoc1.bitnet

This is a machine at ESA in Darmstadt, Germany; IKI has a dedicated
phone line to this machine and someone there logs in regularly to
retrieve mail.

In addition, there are several user accounts belonging to Russian
scientific institutions on

	<user>@sovam.com

which is a commercial enterprise based in San Francisco that provides
email services to the former USSR.  For example, fian@sovam.com is the
"PHysics Institute of the Academy of Sciences" (initials transliterated
from Russian, of course).  These connections cost the Russians real
dollars, even for *received* messages, so please don't send anything
voluminous or frivilous.

=====================================================================
Larry R. D'Addario
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Addresses   (INTERNET) LDADDARI@NRAO.EDU
	    (FAX)      +1/804/296-0324 Charlottesville
		       +1/304/456-2200 Green Bank
	    (MAIL)     2015 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA
	    (PHONE)    +1/804/296-0245 office, 804/973-4983 home  CHO
		       +1/304/456-2226 off., -2106 lab, -2256 apt. GB
=====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60943
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Subject: message from Space Digest





Joint Press release ESA/UN No 18-93
Paris, 19 April 1993

UN/ESA joint training course on satellite applications
to be held in Italy, 19-30 April

The United Nations and the European Space Agency (ESA)
are jointly organising a training course on the applications of
satellite data gathered by the European Remote Sensing
Satellite (ERS-1), to be held in Frascati, Italy, from 19 to 30
April. The training course will discuss the applications of
satellite data concerning natural resources, renewable energy
and the environment.

The training course, organised for the benefit of francophone
African experts, will be hosted by ESRIN, the European Space
Agency's establishment in Frascati, which is responsible for
coordination with the users of data from ESA's remote sensing
satellite. Twenty-four experts in the field of remote sensing,
selected from 19 francophone countries from northern, western
and central Africa, and three regional African centres, will
attend the two-week session. The course will focus on remote
sensing techniques and data applications, particularly ERS-1
data.

The ERS-1 satellite, developed by ESA and launched in 1991
with the European Ariane launcher, carries an advanced radar
instrument and is the first in a series of radar remote sensing
missions that will ensure availability of data beyond the year
2000. The aim of the training course is to increase the
potential of experts using the practical applications of radar
remote sensing systems to natural resources, renewable energy
and the environment, with particular emphasis on applications
to geology and mineral prospecting, oceanography and near-
coastal areas, agriculture, forestry and meteorology.

The education and practical training programme was
developed jointly by the United Nations and ESA. The
facilities and the technical support, as well as lecturers and
information documents for the training course, will be
provided by the Agency. Lecturers at the training course will
include high-level experts from other European and African
organisations active in remote sensing applications. Funds for
the training course are being provided by the United Nations



Trust Fund for New and Renewable Sources of Energy; the
primary contributor to that Fund is the Government of Italy.

A similar training course is being planned for Latin American
experts.



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60944
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

In article <1993Apr20.072706.19981@cs.ruu.nl>, jhwitten@cs.ruu.nl (Jurriaan Wittenberg) writes...
>In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov 
>(Ron Baalke) writes:
> 
>>4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
>>interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.

>Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??

The gravity data is collected in real-time and it not recorded to the tape
recorder.  However, you only need to collect the gravity every 3rd or 4th
orbit, so there is no real data loss if the Moon blocks transmission for
a short while.

>BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am
>looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something
>to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)

The aerobraking starts May 25 and is expected last about 70 days.  If the
funding is provided (8 million dollars) to extend the mission for the
high resolution gravity data, then the mission will last through October 1994.
Otherwise, the mission will end this coming July.   
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60945
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

In article <C5rHoC.Fty@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
> rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
> Anyone else know anything on this angle?

The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General
Dynamics.

The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people*
on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd
think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for
modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but
there's not a hint of this in the brochure.

> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(

You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60946
From: Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1qkmkiINNep3@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug
Mohney) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>>
>>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh
yeah,
>>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.
>
>Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING
>LOT of the K-MART!
>    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

They just tore down the Kmart near my house (putting in a new suptermarket).  I
heard that there is a beer drinking ghost who still haunts the place!  8-{)

Tom

I liked this one I read a while ago...

"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60947
From: ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu> snydefj@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>
>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
> Sails

I was at an interesting seminar at work (UK's R.A.L. Space Science
Dept.) on this subject, specifically on a small-scale Solar Sail
proposed as a student space project. The guy giving the talk was keen to
generate interest in the project. I'll typein the handout he gave out at
the meeting. Here goes : 

			The Microlight Solar Sail
			-------------------------

1. Introduction
The solar sail is a well-established concept. Harnessing the pressure of
sunlight, a spacecraft would have unlimited range. In principle, such a
vehicle could explore the whole Solar System with zero fuel consumption.

However it is more difficult to design a practical solar sail than most
people realize. The pressure of sunlight is only about one kilogram per
square kilometer. Deploying and controlling the large area of aluminized
fabric which would be necessary to transport a 'conventional' type
spacecraft is a daunting task. This is why, despite the potential of hte
idea, no such craft has actually been launched to date.

2.Design
Recent advances in microelectronics make possible a different concept: a
tiny sail just a few metres in diameter which could be controlled purely
be electronics, with no mechanical parts. Several attitude control
methods are feasible: for example the pressure sunlight exerts on a
panel of solar cells varies according to whether power is being drawn.

The key components of the craft will be a minute CCD camera developed at
Edinburgh University which can act as both attitude sensor and data
gathering device; solar cells providing ~1 watt power for control and
communication; and a directional radio antenna etched onto the surface
of the sail itself. Launched as a piggyback payload, the total cost of
the mission can be limited to a few tens of thousands of dollars.

3.Missions
The craft would be capable of some ambitious missions. For example:
a) It could rendezvous with a nearby asteroid from the Apollo or Amor
groups. Closeup pictures could be transmitted back to Earth at a low bit
rate.
b) It could be steered into a lunar polar orbit. Previously unobserved
areas around the lunar poles could be viewed. By angling the sail to
reflect sunlight downwards, polar craters whose bases never receive
sunlight could be imaged. Bright reflections would confirm that
volatiles such as water ice have become trapped in these
locations.[Immensely valuable information for setting up a manned lunar
base, BTW]
c) It could be sent to rendezvous with a small asteroid or comet
nucleus. Impacting at low speed, a thin wire probe attached to the craft
causes it to rebound while capturing a tiny sample is a sharp-edged
tube, like performing a biopsy. Returning to Earth, the sail acts as an
ideal re-entry parachute: load per unit area 20 gm/m2 ensures that heat
is reradiated so efectively that the sail temperature cannot exceed ~300
deg C. The material sample is recovered, enclosed in a small insulating
container.

Contact: Colin Jack                              Tel. 0865-200447
Oxford Mathematical Designs, 131 High Street, Oxford OX1 4DH, England

--------------------------------

This guy would love to hear from anyone interested in this project or
seeking details or anything, and would be most happy to send you more
information.

	Andy



-- 
                                  ----------------------------------- 
Andy Jonathan J. Broderick,      | "I have come that they might have |
Rutherford Lab., UK              |  life, and have it to the full"   |
Mail : ajjb@adam2.bnsc.rl.ac.uk  |  - Jesus Christ                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60948
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
course, they may be over-optimistic.

You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
that would help pay for its development costs.

I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60949
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Activities in Tucson, AZ ?

I would like to find out about space engineering employment and educational
opportunities in the Tucson, Arizona area.  E-mail responses appreciated.
My mail feed is intermittent, so please try one or all of these addresses.

Ben Muniz      w(818)586-3578      MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@beach.rockwell.com 
or:  bmuniz@a1tms1.remnet.ab.com  MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60950
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <93110.031905SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>says:
>>It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
>>that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
>>Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
>>years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
>>levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
>>put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
>>use grad students?
>
>You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.
>
>Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
>be significant commerical activity on the Moon?

Wishful thinking mostly. It's more likely that the Moon will never
be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
grade fusion reactors. Exploring it would satisfy a curiosity itch, 
and it's position in the gravity well of Earth coupled with it's heat 
sink capacity could offer some military utility for "high ground" military
weapons systems, but it holds very minute commercial value. If space 
travel becomes cheap enough, it might become a tourist attraction as 
Mt. Everest and the Antarctic have become, but that's a very minor 
activity in the global scope of things.

Luna has an inconvienent gravity field. It's likely too low to prevent
calcium loss, muscle atrophy, and long term genetic drift. Yet it's
too high to do micro-G manufacturing. Space based colonies and factories
that can be spun to any convienent value of G look much better. Luna
has a modest vacuum and raw solar exposure two weeks a month, but orbital
sites can have better vacuums and continous solar exposure. Luna offers
a source of light element rocks that can serve as raw materials, heatsink,
and shielding. The asteroids and comets offer sources of both light and
heavy elements, and volatile compounds, and many are in less steep gravity
wells so that less delta-v is required to reach them.

We don't use 2/3rds of the Earth now, the seafloors, and we virtually
ignore Antarctica, a whole continent. That's because we don't have to
deal with those conditions in order to make a buck. Luna is a much more
expensive place to visit, or to live and work. I think we'll use the
easier places first. That pushes Lunar development back at least a few
centuries, if not much longer.

Luna's main short term value would be as a place for a farside radio
astronomy observatory, shielded from the noisy Earth. Or as the site
of a laser, particle beam, or linear accelerator weapons system for
defending Earth, or bombarding it as the case may be. The first is
unlikely because of the high cost for such a basic science instrument.
The second is just as unlikely because conventional nukes are good
enough, and the military would really rather see the Earth safe for
conventional warfare again. There's little glory in watching from a
bunker as machines fight each other over continental ranges. Little
ultimate profit either.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60951
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <C5qIv3.H0o.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
>   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
>   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
>   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
>   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
>   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.
>
>Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
>wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
>to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
>spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
>high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
>fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
>defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
>fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
>cooperation.
>
>Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
>money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
>investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
>the size of that multiplier :->).

Actually I favor government funded research. It *is* a pump prime
for a lot of basic technologies. I also understand the short term
value of high tech welfare programs. But they can't substitute for
long range wealth generation via commercial enterprise. That's what's
needed to maintain a healthy economy *anywhere*, on Earth or Luna.
I don't see that long term potential on Luna due to a bunch of
factors I outline in another post.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60952
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: First Spacewalk

At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.

Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?

Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented !
* How is Frank Zappa doing ?
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60953
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Moonbase race

From: Gene Wright <gene@theporch.raider.net>

>With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints
>by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about
>that might just work.

>Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation
>who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.
>Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin
>to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'll say!  Imagine that there were a couple groups up there, maybe landing
a few weeks apart.  The year-mark starts coming on for the first group.
Isn't a billion pretty good incentive to take a shot at a potential
winner?  "Yeah, that's a shame that Team A's life support gave out
so close to the deadline.  Thanks for the billion."

On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks
in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more
than only 1 billion to get any takers?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60954
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Level 5?


Nick Haines sez;
>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60955
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?


In article <C5qvJC.B4B@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes: 
> The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.

>   However, quite possibly it's
> no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
> can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.

The NASM photo archives are open to the public.  All (or almost all)
still pictures in the collection are available for viewing, but I
don't know about films.  At least it might be worth a try.  I'm not
sure if appointments are necessary, but I think not.

Good luck, and let us know what you find.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact lpf@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60956
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?

In article <1993Apr20.020259.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes"
>such as the following:
>
>Large Corp.
>Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?)
>Large Government (GNP and such)
>Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?)
>Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?)
>Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)

Whatabout, Schools, Universities, Rich Individuals (around 250 people 
in the UK have more than 10 million dollars each). I reecieved mail
from people who claimed they might get a person into space for $500
per pound. Send a skinny person into space and split the rest of the money
among the ground crew!
>
>The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ??
>
>Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ??
>Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class
>winners..
>More fair?
>
>There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events,
>umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want
>to risk thier own lives let them do it?).
>
Agreed. I volunteer for any UK attempts. But one clause: No launch methods
which are clearly dangerous to the environment (ours or someone else's). No
usage of materials from areas of planetary importance.

>Any other ideas??

Yes: We should *do* this rather than talk about it. Lobby people!
The major problem with the space programmes is all talk/paperwork and
no action!

>==
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>


-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60957
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>(Josh Hopkins) writes:
>> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
>> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing. 

>The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General
>Dynamics.

>The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people*
>on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd
>think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for
>modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but
>there's not a hint of this in the brochure.

It may be that they just didn't mention it, or that they actually haven't 
thought about it.  I got the vague impression from their mission proposal
that they weren't taking a very holistic aproach to the whole thing.  They
seemed to want to land people on the Moon by the end of the decade without 
explaining why, or what they would do once they got there.  The only application
I remember from the Av Week article was placing a telescope on the Moon.  That's
great, but they don't explain why it can't be done robotically. 

>> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(

>You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.

But I'm a _member_.  Besides Bill, I hang out with you :) 

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60958
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu> snydefj@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>
>>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>> Sails

>I was at an interesting seminar at work (UK's R.A.L. Space Science
>Dept.) on this subject, specifically on a small-scale Solar Sail
>proposed as a student space project. The guy giving the talk was keen to
>generate interest in the project. I'll typein the handout he gave out at
>the meeting. Here goes : 

[Stuff deleted] 

>However it is more difficult to design a practical solar sail than most
>people realize. The pressure of sunlight is only about one kilogram per
>square kilometer.     ^^^^                                   ^^^^    

I'm glad to see that someone is working on this.  However, it would be nice if
he got his units right.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60959
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu>, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>  Sails. [...]
> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

Sure.  Contact the World Space Foundation.  They're listed in the sci.space
Frequently Asked Questions file, which I'll excerpt.

    WORLD SPACE FOUNDATION - has been designing and building a solar-sail
    spacecraft for longer than any similar group; many JPL employees lend
    their talents to this project. WSF also provides partial funding for the
    Palomar Sky Survey, an extremely successful search for near-Earth
    asteroids. Publishes *Foundation News* and *Foundation Astronautics
    Notebook*, each a quarterly 4-8 page newsletter. Contributing Associate,
    minimum of $15/year (but more money always welcome to support projects).

	World Space Foundation
	Post Office Box Y
	South Pasadena, California 91301

WSF put together a little paperback anthology of fiction and
nonfiction about solar sails: *Project Solar Sail*.  I think Robert
Staehle, David Brin,  or Arthur Clarke may be listed as editor.

Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman,
a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),
and I would expect that Greg Matloff and Eugene Mallove have something
to say about the subject in *The Starflight Handbook*, as well as
quite a few references.


Check the following articles in *Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society*:

V36 p. 201-209 (1983)
V36 p. 483-489 (1983)
V37 p. 135-141 (1984)
V37 p. 491-494 (1984)
V38 p. 113-119 (1984)
V38 p. 133-136 (1984)

(Can you guess that Matloff visited Fermilab and gave me a bunch of
reprints? I just found the file.)

And K. Eric Drexler's paper "High Performance Solar Sails and Related
Reflecting Devices," AIAA paper 79-1418, probably in a book called
*Space Manufacturing*, maybe the proceedings of the Second (?)
Conference on Space Manufacturing.  The 1979 one, at any rate.

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player. 
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60960
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

For that matter, why exactly were the Apollo lunar experiments
"turned off" rather than just "safed".  Was it political (i.e.
as along as they could be used, someone would keep bugging
congress for funds)?  Turning them off keeps them pesky
scientists out of the bureaucrat's hair....  

I've heard the argument that an active but "uncontrolled"
spacecraft causes "radio noise."  I find that hard to believe
that this could be a problem in a properly designed "safe" mode.
This safe mode could be a program routine which causes the
spacecraft to go to least fuel using orientation, and once a
(week, month, year, whatever) attempts a signal lock on Earth.
At that time, if funding has been restored, the mission can
continue.  If no signal is recieved, the spacecraft goes back to
the safe mode for another time period. As we would know when the
spacecraft is going to try to contact Earth, we could be
prepared if necessary.  

As another a spacecraft could do at the attempted contact is
beam stored data towards Earth.  If someone can receive it,
great, if not, so it's lost and no big deal.
By making the time and signal location generally known, perhaps
someone in the world might be able and willing to intercept the
data even if they're not willing to contact the spacecraft.

I see this as being particularly useful for spacecraft which
could have an otherwise long life and are in or are going to
places which are otherwise unaccessible (Jupiter/Saturn Orbit,
exiting the solar system, etc).   

Perhaps those designing future spacecraft (Cassini, Pluto Flyby,
etc) should consider designing in a "pause" mode in case their
spacecraft gets the ax sometime in the future after completion of
the primary mission. Perhaps Mars Observer and Galilleo could
have some kind of routine written in for the post mission
"drift" phase.

So any holes in all this?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60961
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

 > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
 > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
 > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
 > grade fusion reactors.

I don't know what a "low grade" fusion reactor is, but the major
problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some
fractions, but still very small).  Massive amounts of regolith would
have to be processed.

This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
content with being assured that titanium (at .5% in the Earth's crust,
average) would not run out, and touted lunar mines, even though the
market price of ilmenite concentrate these days is around $.06/pound.
This prompted me to look up large potential terrestrial sources.

On the moon, titanium occurs in basalts; "high-Ti" basalts (Apollo 11
and 17) have 8-14% titanium dioxide (by weight).  This is nice, but...
terrestrial continental flood basalts are also typically enriched in
titanium.  They very often have 3% TiO2, frequently have 4%, and
sometimes even 5% TiO2 (again, by weight).  These flood basalts are
*enormous* -- millions of cubic kilometers, scattered all over the
world (Siberia, Brazil, the NW United States, Ethiopia, etc.).  If
even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
mined today).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60962
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes...
>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

It can be, but the problem is a political one, not a technical one. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60963
From: agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr20.164655.11048@head-cfa.harvard.edu>, willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
> 
> The NASM photo archives are open to the public.  All (or almost all)
> still pictures in the collection are available for viewing, but I
> don't know about films.  At least it might be worth a try.  I'm not
> sure if appointments are necessary, but I think not.
>
Is posible to make copies of these photographs (or any other aerospace
photographs at NASM) if you pay a copyright fee?

===============================================================================
Andres C. Gaeris	   || "Living example of the application of Newton's
Junior laser fusioneer	   ||  Zeroth Law:
agae@lle.rochester.edu	   ||  `Every body in rest wants to remain in bed'"
===============================================================================

 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60964
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
From: Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>

jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

> >> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
> >> 
> >> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> >> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
> > 
> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> > 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> > Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> > -- 
> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Hmmmm....  The prefix "peri-" is Greek, not Latin, so it's usually used
with the Greek form of the name of the body being orbited.  (That's why
it's "perihelion" rather than "perisol", "perigee" rather than "periterr",
and "pericynthion" rather than "perilune".)  So for Jupiter I'd expect it
to be something like "perizeon".)   :^)

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60965
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Proton/Centaur?

Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60966
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.204838.13217@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

    > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
    > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
    > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
    > grade fusion reactors.

   problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
   reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
   small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some

   This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
   as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
 ...
   even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
   at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
   basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
   could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
   ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
   mined today).

Why Paul, it's obvious.
Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
assume any developments in Ti processing).
Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
of National Importance 

:-) :-) :-) 


(oops, this is sci.space... wrong rules of debate ;-)


Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
use... as to why Lunar natives are cost effective, 
analysis has shown they will be critical in providing
a sheltered manufacturing base, technological innovation,
critical materials and manpower in the war between
the Allies and Central Powers in about two hundred years...

;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60967
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

> Why Paul, it's obvious.
> Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
> as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
> sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
> assume any developments in Ti processing).
> Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
> the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
> of National Importance 
>
> :-) :-) :-) 

Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The
chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving
dominance in the marketplace.

Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced
white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the
metal.

> Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
> in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
> the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
> use...

Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60968
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: Did any DC-X gifs show up?

fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils) writes:

>In article <1qgiah$h9g@news.cerf.net> diaspar@nic.cerf.net (Diaspar Virtual Reality Network) writes:
>>The rollout was great and I got lots of great shots. I attended
>>the press briefing and got shots of the DC-Y model, too. All
>>in 3D
>>
>>David H. Mitchell
>>
>>
>David,
>	Are you still planing on scanning these and posting them
>somewhere?  Hope Hope Hope.  If you could that would be GREAT.

>Thanks for report of the rollout as well
>take care
>Doug

	They did the rollout already??!?  I am going to have to pay more
attention to the news.  Are any of the gifs headed for wuarchive??
 

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Grady 		      |How do they manage it, these humans-beginning
 pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    |each time so innocently, yet always ending up
 pwg25888@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu |with the most blood on their hands?
			      |Fathertree to bugger, O.S. Card's _Xenocide_

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60969
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.223807.16712@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   > Why Paul, it's obvious.
   > Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
   > as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will

   > :-) :-) :-) 

   Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The
   chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving
   dominance in the marketplace.

Darn, caught by the white hot heat of technological progress again...

   Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced
   white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the
   metal.

Spoilsport. Hence the need for increasing fashion
emphasis on anodise Ti jewelry...

   > Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
   > in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
   > the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
   > use...

   Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
   there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

I did not evade the issue at all. I clearly stated that
this would be from diabolical foresight in establishing
a sheltered industrial base for the upcoming Great War ;-)
Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60970
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article F23@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
>
>Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
>to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
>course, they may be over-optimistic.
>
>You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
>that would help pay for its development costs.
>
>I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.

this all sounds like that Indecent Proposal movie.  wouldn't there be
a lot of people that would try this with little hope of working just
to get the dough?  if you have a 1:100 chance and it costs you $10Mil,
then you might pay some stooge a few grand to be your lucky hero.
just send up a few dozen and 1 is bound to survive enough to make YOU
rich.
--DonG

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60971
From: enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.

From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:

........
WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
 hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie. Now, Space Marketing
is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
orbit.  NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
..........

What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.
What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
Is NASA really supporting this junk?
Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
Really, really depressed.

             Enzo
-- 
Vincenzo Liguori                             | enzo@research.canon.oz.au
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone +61 2 805 2983
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   +61 2 805 2929

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60972
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Astronomy Program

In article <28641@galaxy.ucr.edu> datadec@ucrengr.ucr.edu (kevin marcus) writes:
>Are there any public domain or shareware astronomy programs which will
>map out the sky at any given time, and allow you to locate planets, nebulae,
>and so forth?  If so, is there any ftp site where I can get one?

I posted my public-domain MSDOS program "sunlight.zip" to "sci.astro" yesterday.
It easily locates the sun, moon, and planets, and can also be used to
locate other objects if you input their Right Ascesion and Declination.
Use "uudecode" to extract.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

         "Marxism and feminism are one and that one is Marxism"

                             - Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges,
                       quoted by Catharine MacKinnon above the first chapter
                       of her "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State"


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60973
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:

>> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>>  Sails. [...]
>> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

Bill says ...

>Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman,
>a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),

I presume the one you refer to is "Space Sailing" by Jerome L. Wright.  He 
worked on solar sails while at JPL and as CEO of General Astronautics.  I'll
furnish ordering info upon request.

The Friedman book is called "Starsailing: Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel."
It was available from the Planetary Society a few years ago, I don't know if
it still is.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60974
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?


I don't know a whole lot on Proton, but given that it is a multi stage
rocket,  up to 4 stages, it may not really need the Centaur,  plus
it may end up seriously beating on said centaur.   

Also, the centaur is not small,  unless the Proton has an oversize
shroud you may not be able to get the centaur in under it.

Dennis,  you know much about this?

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60975
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......


And one of my profs is the chief engineer for the project (Dr. Ron
Humble, Univ. Colorado at Colorado Springs).

I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  

<BOOM!>  Whooooooooshhhhhh......  <sputter, sputter>

<okay, PRETEND it would make a sound!>

I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
with the Atlanta Olympics. 

						Fuzzy.
===============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |     "I want peace on earth,
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |       goodwill toward men." 
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     |"We're the government. We don't do that 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | that sort of thing."     -SNEAKERS 
===============================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60976
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu> schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:
> 
>>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> 
>>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
> 
> Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
> $$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
> moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
> transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
> more than needed.
> 
> This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
> enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
> 
>   Allen
> 
> -- 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
> | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
> +----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Or have different classes of competetors.. and made the total purse $6billion
or $7billion (depending on how many different classes there are, as in auto
racing/motocycle racing and such)..

We shall see how things go..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60977
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.



Some birds require constant management for survival.  Pointing a sensor at
the sun, even when powered down, may burn it out.  Pointing a
parabolic antenna  at Sol,  from venus orbit  may trash the
foci  elements.

Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
cosmic phenomena.   

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60978
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
> black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
> on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
> "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
> It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.
> 
> Doug Loss


Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an
astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future of
space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60979
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article <C5szvL.I48@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
>>I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.
>
>this all sounds like that Indecent Proposal movie.  wouldn't there be
>a lot of people that would try this with little hope of working just
>to get the dough?  if you have a 1:100 chance and it costs you $10Mil,
>then you might pay some stooge a few grand to be your lucky hero.
>just send up a few dozen and 1 is bound to survive enough to make YOU
>rich.

Any prize like this is going to need to be worded carefully enough that
you cannot get it without demonstrating sustained and reliable capability,
rather than a lucky one-shot.  It can be done.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60980
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <C5sx3y.3z9.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
>On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks
>in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more
>than only 1 billion to get any takers?

Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60981
From: jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times


Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
to compute sunrise and sunset times.

I would appreciate any advice.

Joe Wetstein
jpw@coe.drexel.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60982
From: todd@phad.la.locus.com (Todd Johnson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
;From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:
;
;........
;WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
;
;1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
;What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
;it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
;Is NASA really supporting this junk?
;Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
;Really, really depressed.
;
;             Enzo

I wouldn't worry about it.  There's enough space debris up there that
a mile-long inflatable would probably deflate in some very short
period of time (less than a year) while cleaning up LEO somewhat.
Sort of a giant fly-paper in orbit.

Hmm, that could actually be useful.

As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one
drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need
to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization
on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.

<todd>

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60983
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

Okay here is what I have so far:

Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon,
set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does
that mean no resupply or ?? 

Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.

Contest open to different classes of participants.

New Mexico State has semi-challenged University of Alaska (any branch) to put a
team together and to do it..
Any other University/College/Institute of Higher Learning wish to make a
counter challenge or challenge another school? Say it here.

I like the idea of having atleast a russian team.


Some prefer using new technology, others old or ..

The basic idea of the New Moon Race is like the Solar Car Race acrossed
Australia.. Atleast in that basic vein of endevour..

Any other suggestions?

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60984
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: RE: Looking for a little research help

Found it! Thanks. I got several offers for help. I appreciate it and
will be contacting those people via e-mail.

Thanks again...

jennise

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60985
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be
activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion
beacon, to take a directional plot on??

Wierd or what?
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60986
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when
the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would 
take the offer.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60987
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

Hmm.  $1 billion, lesse... I can probably launch 100 tons to LEO at
$200 million, in five years, which gives about 20 tons to the lunar
surface one-way.  Say five tons of that is a return vehicle and its
fuel, a bigger Mercury or something (might get that as low as two
tons), leaving fifteen tons for a one-man habitat and a year's supplies?
Gee, with that sort of mass margins I can build the systems off
the shelf for about another hundred million tops.  That leaves
about $700 million profit.  I like this idea 8-)  Let's see
if you guys can push someone to make it happen 8-) 8-)

[slightly seriously]

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60988
From: hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
(Enzo Liguori) writes:

> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
selling every bit that promises to make money? I guess we really
deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

	Another depressed planetary citizen,
	hoover



-- 
Uwe "Hoover" Schuerkamp 		     hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de
		Clear Skies --- Fight light pollution!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60989
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Subject: Re: Space Station radio commercial

In article <C5r2I1.793@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>A brief political/cultural item.
>
>Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with
>a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).  
>Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond
>jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines.
>
>This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project.
>Didn't catch the advertiser.
>
>Guess they're pulling out all the stops.

In the Air Force world at least, the crisis escalates when scale
models of the plane in question (i.e. about to be sacrificed) begin to
arrive in key Senators and Congresspersons' offices.

Of course it is assumed that coffee mugs and other decorative junk has
been tried earlier.

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      "I post, therefore I ARMM"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60990
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

> Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
> there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

Paul-- for the same reason that many other colonies are founded. Why not?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60991
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:

>>I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
>>with the Atlanta Olympics. 

>Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this
>orbiting billboard.  Considering the caliber of people running this city, 
>there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit.

I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  Assuming that rockets with specific
impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry
weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer.
A small dispersal charge embedded in about 20 kg of sand or
birdshot (depending on the nature of the structure) would be
the payload.  I am sure the whole project is well within
the capability of the amateur rocketry community.

It sounds like a good Science Fair project--'Reduction
of Light Pollution Through Applied Ballistics'.
Or, it could be part of the Challenge Prize being discussed
here: $1 billion for the first person to spend 1 year
on the moon, $1 million for the first erradication of
an orbital eyesore/CCD burner.  I wouldpledge $1000
for the first person to bring it down, and I am sure
there are at least 999 other astronomers, nature lovers,
or just plain people of good taste who would do likewise.

Of course, a  Gerald Bull solution might be simpler.
(Either the solution Gerald Bull would apply--the use
of a large caliber gun; or the solution which was applied
to Gerald Bull--the use of a small caliber gun.)
-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60992
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Which Gehrels? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?)

In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
> 
>> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
> 
> Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
> me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
> has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
> Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
> Same person?

I would guess not.  Dr. Neil Gehrels of CGRO is the son of Dr. Tom
Gehrels of the University of Arizona.  Since he's long had research
interests in asteroids and other solar-system astronomy, Tom is the
one more likely to have discovered  a comet (and thus had his name
attached to it).

Tom Gehrels is a leader in the Spacewatch project, which has recently
increased mankind's discovery rate on near-Earth asteroids (they're
finding a couple every month).  For much more on this interesting guy,
read his autobiography, *On a Glassy Sea*.

"Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?...    Bill Higgins
Hundreds of thousands of them.  All        
wandering around the Sun in strange        Fermilab
orbits.  Some never named, never
charted.  The orphans of the Solar         higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
System, Mr. Kemp."
                                           higgins@fnal.bitnet
"And you want to become a father."
  --*Moon Zero Two*                        SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60993
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
>Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be
>activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion
>beacon, to take a directional plot on??

>Wierd or what?
>==
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

There is a whole constellation of custom built navigation beacon satellites
in the process of being phased out right now. The TRANSIT/OSCAR satellites
are being replaced by GPS. Or were you thinking of deep space navigation,
which is best done with doppler/VLBI/ stellar measurements. I do not think
additional radio beacons would help much.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60994
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60995
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.

So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60996
Subject: Life on Mars???
From: schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer)

What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
associated theories. (which sound thin to me)

Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
Does anyone buy all the life theories?

-- 
Don Schiewer   | Internet  schiewer@pa881a.inland.com    | Onward Great
Inland Steel   | UUCP:     !uucp!pa881a.inland!schiewer  | Stream...

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60997
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 

Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember,
this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad,
just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60998
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

   Nick Haines sez;
   >(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
   >maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

   Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
   heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

This is a rating system used by ARPA and other organisations to
measure the maturity of a `software process' i.e. the entire process
by which software gets designed, written, tested, delivered, supported
etc.

See `Managing the Software Process', by Watts S. Humphrey, Addison
Wesley 1989. An excellent software engineering text. The 5 levels of
software process maturity are:

1. Initial
2. Repeatable
3. Defined
4. Managed
5. Optimizing

The levels are approximately characterized as follows:

1. no statistically software process control. Have no statistical
   basis for estimating how large software will be, how long it will
   take to produce, how expensive it will be, or how reliable it will
   be.  Most software production is at this level.

2. stable process with statistical controls, rigorous project
   management; having done something once, can do it again. Projects
   are planned in detail, and there is software configuration
   management and quality assurance.

3. The process is defined and understood, implementation is
   consistent. This includes things like software inspection, a
   rigorous software testing framework, more configuration management,
   and typically a `software engineering process group' within the
   project.

4. Statistical information on the software is systematically gathered
   and analysed, and the process is controlled on the basis of this
   information. Software quality is measured and has goals.

5. Defects are prevented, the process is automated, software contracts
   are effective and certified.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 60999
From: mrf4276@egbsun12.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Matthew R. Feulner)
Subject: Re: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

In article <1993Apr20.234427.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|> Okay here is what I have so far:
|> 
|> Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon,
|> set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does
|> that mean no resupply or ?? 
|> 
|> Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.


My first thought is Ross Perot.  After further consideration, I think he'd
be more likely to try to win it...but come in a disappointing third.

Try Bill Gates.  Try Sam Walton's kids.

Matt

matthew_feulner@qmlink.draper.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61000
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:


>Nick Haines sez;
>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
>>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

>Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
>heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

SEI Level 5 (the highest level -- the SEI stands for Software
Engineering Institute).  I'm not sure, but I believe that this rating
only applies to the flight software.  Also keep in mind that it was
*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
did the whole process by hand.  I would not consider receiving a 'Warning'
status on systems which are not yet in use would detract much (if
anything) from such a rating -- I'll have to get the latest copy of
the guidelines to make sure (they just issued new ones, I think).

Also keep in mind that the SEI levels are concerned primarily with
control of the software process; the assumption is that a
well controlled process will produce good software.  Also keep in mind
that SEI Level 5 is DAMNED HARD.  Most software in this country is
produced by 'engineering practicies' that only rate an SEI Level 1 (if
that). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61001
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

In article <C5rHoC.Fty@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:


>I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
>connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
>rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
>Anyone else know anything on this angle?

If by that you mean anything on the GD approach, there was an article on
it in a recent Avation Week. I don't remember the exact date but it was
recent.

 Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61002
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

>Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
>to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
>course, they may be over-optimistic.

In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
range.

>You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
>that would help pay for its development costs.

True it and the contest would result in a much larger market. But I
don't think it would be enough to attract the investors given the
risks involved.

If you could gurantee the SSTO costs and gurantee that it captures
100% of the available launch market, then I think you could
do it.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61003
From: cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook)
Subject: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.

If memory serves, the $25k prize would not have been enough to totally 
reimburse some of the more expensive transatlantic projects (such as 
Fokker's, Nungesser and other multi-engine projects). However Lindbergh 
ultimately kept his total costs below that amount.

But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.

Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
today?

Layne Cook
cook@apt.mdc.com                                             
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61004
From: Andrew Rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> Don Schiewer,
schiewer@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
>associated theories. (which sound thin to me)
>
>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
>Does anyone buy all the life theories?

try   alt.alien.visitors

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61005
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:

>I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
>with the Atlanta Olympics. 

Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this
orbiting billboard.  Considering the caliber of people running this city, 
there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61006
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

In article <1993Apr21.140804.15028@draper.com> mrf4276@egbsun12.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Matthew R. Feulner) writes:
>|> Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.
>
>My first thought is Ross Perot.  After further consideration, I think he'd
>be more likely to try to win it...but come in a disappointing third.
>Try Bill Gates.  Try Sam Walton's kids.

When the Lunar Society's $500M estimate of the cost of a lunar colony was
mentioned at Making Orbit, somebody asked Jerry Pournelle "have you talked
to Bill Gates?".  The answer:  "Yes.  He says that if he were going to
sink that much money into it, he'd want to run it -- and he doesn't have
the time."

(Somebody then asked him about Perot.  Answer:  "Having Ross Perot on your
board may be a bigger problem than not having the money.")
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61007
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes:
>What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
>associated theories. (which sound thin to me)

The "face" is an accident of light and shadow.  There are many "faces" in
landforms on Earth; none is artificial (well, excluding Mount Rushmore and
the like...).  There is also a smiley face on Mars, and a Kermit The Frog.

The question of life in a more mundane sense -- bacteria or the like -- is
not quite closed, although the odds are against it, and the most that the
more orthodox exobiologists are hoping for now is fossils.

There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.

>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?

Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better
image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody
takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very
face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin
the illusion.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61008
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

   Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!

Hell, yes. I'm not going to let a bunch of seven suits tell
me what the right way to estimate cost effectiveness is, at
least not until they can make their mind up long enough
to leave their scheme stable for a fiscal year or two.


Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government
whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost
effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked
in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61009
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>
>... Also keep in mind that it was
>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>did the whole process by hand...

I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)

Among other things, the software people worked very hard to get things
right for the major pre-flight simulations, and considered a failure
during those simulations to be nearly as bad as an in-flight failure.
As a result, the number of major-simulation failures could be counted
on one hand, and the number of in-flight failures was zero.

As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
(None of the experimenters could afford it.)
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61010
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR positions

  C-3's bird may be flaking out and expecting to die soon.

or C-3  may orbit over  major users areas, and it may be
needed to provide  redundancy on that plane  while b-4  may orbit
over hicksville, and not have muc of a user community.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61011
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <1r3nuvINNjep@lynx.unm.edu>, cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
> All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
> moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
> development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
> Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.
> But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
> realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.
> Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
> today?

  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.  It didn't require gov't to
fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit
at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.
But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.
  I am sure that a thriving spaceflight industry will eventually develop,
and large numbers of people will live and work off-Earth.  But if you ask
me for specific justifications other than the increased resource base, I
can't give them.  We just don't know enough.  The launch rate demanded by
existing space industries is just too low to bring costs down much, and
we are very much in the dark about what the revolutionary new space industries
will be, when they will practical, how much will have to be invested to
start them, etc.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61012
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <C5uB2s.FD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes:
>There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.

Not quite true.  One of the instruments on Mars Observer will be searching
for potential fossil sites.   

>>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
> 
>Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better
>image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody
>takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very
>face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin
>the illusion.

The face and the Viking landing sites will be targeted by the high-resolution
camera on Mars Observer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61013
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: First Spacewalk

In article <C5suMG.2rF.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
>At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
>(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.
>
>Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?
>
>Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

This claim was made when someone spotted training film footage spliced into
the footage of the actual spacewalk.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61014
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

One consideration to remember is that if you don't turn it off now,
you may not be able to later.  This isn't a case of reaching over and
flipping a switch; much of the spacecraft has to be working correctly
to execute a "turn off" command successfully.  Spacecraft do malfunction
in their old age.  The big concern is not radio clutter from idle
spacecraft, but radio clutter from malfunctioning spacecraft that can
no longer be turned off.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61015
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1r2aii$ivs@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>
>I don't know a whole lot on Proton, but given that it is a multi stage
>rocket,  up to 4 stages, it may not really need the Centaur,  plus
>it may end up seriously beating on said centaur.   

The Proton has been used in 2, 3, and 4 stage versions.  The two stage version
was used for the first 3 launches, while the 3 and 4 stage versions are used
today.  The four stage version is used mostly for escape (and geosynchronous?)
orbits, while the 3 stage version is used for low earth orbits.  Since this is
the version that launched Mir and the Salyuts (and the add-on modules for Mir),
as long as Centaur is smaller than Mir (which I believe it is), it should fit
under the shroud.

I vaguely recall that the Russians are developing a LH2/LOX upper stage for the
Proton.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61016
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|
|In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
|cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
|is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
|base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
|much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
|range.
>

Alan,

	don't forget,  a HUGE  cost for airliner developement is FAA
certification.  the joke is when the paperwork  exceeds teh weight
of the airplane,  it will fly.

The SR-71, and teh X-15  both highly ambitious  aero-space projects were done
on very narrow engineering budgets.   Partly because they didn't spend much
on paper  pushing.   There is some company in missouri  trying to
get funding to build light commercial transporters  on a low cost basis,
mostly by reducing FAA  certification costs.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61017
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

In article <1r46ofINNdku@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>orbiting billboard...
>
>I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
>object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
>velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
>you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  Assuming that rockets with specific
>impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry
>weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer...

Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen),
you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for
an antisatellite weapon... :-)

The threshold at which OCST licensing kicks in is roughly 100km.
(The rules are actually phrased in more complex ways, but that is
the result.)
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61018
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.

Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct
some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered
this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.
(Sign of the times: a Sony logo on a Soyuz launcher...)

>Now, Space Marketing
>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>orbit.

This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone
know if he's involved?

>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.

This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
build large, inflatable space structures.

>..........
>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

If this is true, I think it's a great idea.

Learning how to build to build structures in space in an essential
step towards space development, and given that Freedom appears to be
shrinking towards the vanishing point, I question whether NASA's space
station is going to provide much, if any, knowledge in this area.
(Especially if a design such as Faget's wingless orbiter is chosen...)
If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates
creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so
much the better.

>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
idea" stage or does it have real funding?

>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?

Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return
of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61019
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
> 
> In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> >>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
> >>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
> 
> >Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
> >to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
> >course, they may be over-optimistic.
> 
> In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
> cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
> is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
> base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
> much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
> range.
> 

For the purpose of a contest, I'd bet some things could be cut.  Like fuel
for re-entry, any kind of heat shielding, etc., etc.  Even still, if the
contest participants had to fund DC-1 development, it probably wouldn't be
worth it to develop DC-1 (just for the contest).  Just give me the cheapest
heaviest lift man rated (or at least under 6 or so Gs) booster...  If I
don't have to pay for DC-1 development, great!, I'll use it.

But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST about a
low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission. 
Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was $6-$9
billion for the US share.

I didn't find a mention of how long the crew could stay, but I'd bet that
its  around 30 days.  And the total payload delivered was about 30 metric
tonnes.  So if you ignore the scientific payload, hitch a ride in the crew
habitation module (no return trip...), and toss in a few more tonnes for
the additional consumables to last another 11 months, then you *might* be
able to get a year visit out of 15 tonnes (and in case its not obvious,
that's a wild ass guess).  A pretty boring visit, since every trip outdoors
eats up a bit of LOX.  And I'm not certain if a home brewed (or
college-brewed) life support system could last a year.  But let's round
this up to 19.4 tonnes (convient, since the GD plan talks about 9.7 ton
payloads delivered to the lunar surface.  This adds up to two Centaurs, two
LEVs, two Shuttle flights... All to put a single man on the moon for a
year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a cheaper/better way of
delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface within the decade?  Anyone
have a more precise guess about how much a year's supply of consumables and
equipment would weigh?

And I was wondering about the GD LEV.  Is it reusable?  Or is it discarded
to burn up on return to LEO?  If its not discarded, could it be refueled? 
Henry: Do you know anything about the GD LEV?  I noted that it uses RL-10
engines.  Aren't they reusable/restartable?  Would a LEV fit in a DC-1? 
I've forgotten (if I ever knew) what the cargo bay dimensions are for the
DC-1.

All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the
moon for a year is wise and/or useful.  How about:  A prize for the first
non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a manned
moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from
lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth.  Find
some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure...  Having a single goal
might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person appeared
to win.  And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little scary
about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters.  I'd
like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition.

Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was an
English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases on
the cheap.  I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human
body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from solar
flares, etc.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. 
Does this ring a bell to anyone?

Craig Keithley                    |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
Apple Computer, Inc.              |I got no memory of anything at all"
keithley@apple.com                |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61020
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?


> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
> > > 
> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ...

> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
Same person?
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

This article is in the public domain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61021
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse

Forwarded from John Spencer (spencer@lowell.edu):

There will be two eclipses of Iapetus by Saturn and its
rings, in May and July.  Please spread the word!  Here's some
information about the events, and then a couple of messages from Jay
Goguen of JPL appealing for thermal observations of the eclipse to
learn more about the thermal properties of Iapetus.  He might also have
some money available...

John Spencer, 1993/04/21

Iapetus will be eclipsed by the shadows of Saturn's rings and Saturn
itself on 1993/05/01-02 (18:27-13:43 UT) and again on 1993/07/20-21,
(21:16-09:38 UT).  Timing is as follows;

     1993 May 1-2

        A-ring ingress  18:27
               egress   19:30
        B-ring ingress  19:51
               egress   21:42
        C-ring egress   23:00
        Saturn ingress  23:59
               egress   10:02
        B-ring ingress  10:28
               egress   12:19
        A-ring ingress  12:40
               egress   13:43

     1993 July 20-21

        Saturn ingress  21:16
               egress   05:08
        A-ring ingress  05:13  (grazing)
               egress   09:38

Times could be 30 minutes later according to an alternate ephemeris,
and photometric observations are important for refining Iapetus'
orbit.  Because the Sun's size projected on the rings as seen from
Iapetus is 3100 km it's unlikely that we will learn anything new about
the rings themselves from the observations.  See Soma (1992), Astronomy
and Astrophysics 265, L21-L24 for more details.  Thanks to Andy Odell
of Northern Arizona University for bringing the events to my
attention.

THERMAL OBSERVATIONS?

Jay Goguen (jdg@scn5.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) writes:

  To me, the interesting thing to do would be thermal IR of the 20 July
  disappearance into the shadow of the planet to measure thermal inertia,
  etc.  Unfortunately, the 21:30 UT of this event renders it inaccessible,
  except from Russia.  Even from Calar Alto, Saturn is rising through 3
  airmasses at 23:00 UT.  Do you know anyone in Russia or Ukraine with
  a big telescope and 10 um instrumentation that's looking for something
  to do?  I'd be willing to make a personal grant of >$100 for the data.

  Jay

and again:

  please try to encourage anyone that can observe the iapetus planet
  disappearance to do so at thermal wavelengths.  My impression would
  be that it's not an easy observation.  Iapetus will be faint and
  getting fainter in eclipse, so you'll need a big telescope that's a
  good IR telescope and reasonable 10 - 20 um instrumentation.  I don't
  think that combination is widely available at the longitudes that are
  well placed for observation.  We need SOFIA for this one.  One
  possibility would be the IR telescope in India, but it's only a 1.2 m.

jay

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61022
From: globus@nas.nasa.gov (Al Globus)
Subject: Space Colony Size Preferences Summary


Some time ago I sent the following message:
   Every once in a while I design an orbital space colony.  I'm gearing up to
   do another one.  I'd some info from you. If you were to move
   onto a space colony to live permanently, how big would the colony have
   to be for you to view a permanent move as desirable?  Specifically,

   How many people do you want to share the colony with?
 

   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  


   Assume 1g living (the colony will rotate).  Assume that you can leave
   from time to time for vacations and business trips.  If you're young
   enough, assume that you'll raise your children there.

I didn't get a lot of responses, and they were all over the block.
Thanx muchly to all those who responded, it is good food for thought.




Here's the (edited) responses I got:


   How many people do you want to share the colony with?
 
100

   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

Cylinder 200m diameter x 1 km long

Rui Sousa
ruca@saber-si.pt

=============================================================================

>   How many people do you want to share the colony with?

100,000 - 250,000

>   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

100 square kms surface, divided into city, towns, villages and
countryside.  Must have lakes, rivers amd mountains.

=============================================================================

> How many
1000.  1000 people really isn't that large a number;
everyone will know everyone else within the space of a year, and will probably
be sick of everyone else within another year.

>What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

Hm.  I am not all that great at figuring it out.  But I would maximize the
percentage of colony-space that is accessible to humans.  Esecially if there
were to be children, since they will figure out how to go everywhere anyways.
And everyone, especially me, likes to "go exploring"...I would want to be able
to go for a walk and see something different each time...

=============================================================================

For population, I think I would want a substantial town -- big enough
to have strangers in it.  This helps get away from the small-town
"everybody knows everything" syndrome, which some people like but
I don't.  Call it several thousand people.

For physical dimensions, a somewhat similar criterion:  big enough
to contain surprises, at least until you spent considerable time
getting to know it.  As a more specific rule of thumb, big enough
for there to be places at least an hour away on foot.  Call that
5km, which means a 10km circumference if we're talking a sphere.

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

=============================================================================
My desires, for permanent move to a space colony, assuming easy communication
and travel:

Size:  About a small-town size, say 9 sq. km.  'Course, bigger is better :-)
Population:  about 100/sq km or less.  So, ~1000 for 9sqkm.  Less is
better for elbow room, more for interest and sanity, so say max 3000, min 300.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61023
From: n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR positions


You have missed something.  There is a big difference between being in
the SAME PLANE and in exactly the same state (positions and velocities
equal).  IN addition to this, there has always been redundancies proposed.

Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61024
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <20APR199321040621@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes...
>>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  
> 
>It can be, but the problem is a political one, not a technical one.

Also remember that every dollar spent keeping one spacecraft in safe mode
(probably a spin-stabilized sun-pointing orientation) is a dollar not
spent on mission analysis for a newer spacecraft.  In order to turn the
spacecraft back on, you either need to insure that the Ops guys will be
available, or you need to retrain a new team.

Having said that, there are some spacecraft that do what you have proposed.
Many of the operational satellites Goddard flies (like the Tiros NOAA 
series) require more than one satellite in orbit for an operational set.
Extras which get replaced on-orbit are powered into a "standby" mode for
use in an emergency.  In that case, however, the same ops team is still
required to fly the operational birds; so the standby maintenance is
relatively cheap.

Finally, Pat's explanation (some spacecraft require continuous maintenance
to stay under control) is also right on the mark.  I suggested a spin-
stabilized control mode because it would require little power or 
maintenance, but it still might require some momentum dumping from time
to time.

In the end, it *is* a political decision (since the difference is money),
but there is some technical rationale behind the decision.

David W. @ GSFC  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61025
From: cchung@sneezy.phy.duke.edu (Charles Chung)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary  
Coffman) writes:
> >Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
> >be significant commerical activity on the Moon?
> 
> Wishful thinking mostly.
[Lots of stuff about how the commerical moonbase=fantasyland]

Then what do you believe will finally motivate people to leave the  
earth?  I'm not trying to flame you.  I just want to know where you  
stand.

-Chuck
---
*******************************************************************

	Chuck Chung				(919) 660-2539 (O)
	Duke University Dept. of Physics	(919) 684-1517 (H)
	Durham, N.C.      27706			cchung@phy.duke.edu
	
	"If pro is the opposite of con, 
		then what is the opposite of progress?"

*******************************************************************

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61026
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
>than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?

I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau) 
was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost
payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from
2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing
with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now
I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the 
successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early
results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in 
Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue 
their development. 

The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
and erected on the pad?  

They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
(unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61027
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject:  Level 5

According to a Software engineering professor here, what was actually rated
level five was an ibm unit which produced part of the software for the shuttle,
by not means all of it. 

Interesting note: 90% of the software development groups surveyed were at
level 1. The ibm shuttle groups was the *only* one at level 5!

---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61028
From: hdsteven@solitude.Stanford.EDU (H. D. Stevens)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr21.190156.7769@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
|> >Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
|> >What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
|> >than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?
|> 
|> 
|> The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
|> is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
|> which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
|> launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
|> are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
|> up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
|> thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
|> Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
|> how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
|> bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
|> and erected on the pad?  

The Centaur that is being built for T4 would be a better bet to integrate 
onto the Proton as the T4/Centaur is designed for the Extremely Harsh 
envorinment of the T4 launch. It is also closer to 4 m in diameter. 

You've hit on the real kicker, however. The Centaur is pressure stabilized. 
It cannot hold up its own weight without pressure in the tanks. Additionally, 
the pressure difference between the two tanks must be maintained to ~+/- 5 psi. 
That is rather tight to be rocking and rolling on the train. The pressure 
stabilization is how centaur achieves the performance. On numerous occasions
(when I was there 88-91) the AF wanted to see what it would take to make 
a non-pressure stabilized centaur. The answer -- a centaur not worth launching. 

The Atlas/Centaur does not require on-pad integration, however the T4/Centaur
does. I believe the on-pad integration is to a great extent due to the 
cleanliness requirements and PFL configuration, so maybe something can be 
done there........


|> 
|> They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
|> (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
|> any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
|> US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
|> problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

The addition of LOX/LH facilities is critical as the centaur tops off as it 
lifts off. A LHe facility is also needed. I don't know what the proton uses 
for fuel, but since they are derived from ICBM's I would suspect that they 
use storable propellants which don't have the ullage problem that cryo's 
do. If there is no cryo at the sight at all, the addition of these systems 
could be big $$, not to mention the real tech transfer issues involved with 
providing centaur GSE to Russia. That issue alone might be enough to kill 
this idea. 

-- 
H.D. Stevens
Stanford University			Email:hdsteven@sun-valley.stanford.edu
Aerospace Robotics Laboratory		Phone:	(415) 725-3293  (Lab)
Durand Building					(415) 722-3296  (Bullpen)
Stanford, CA 94305			Fax:	(415) 725-3377

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61029
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) Pontificated: 
>
>
>Some birds require constant management for survival.  Pointing a sensor at
>the sun, even when powered down, may burn it out.  Pointing a
>parabolic antenna  at Sol,  from venus orbit  may trash the
>foci  elements.
>
What I was getting at in my post is whether or not it might be
possible to put enough brains on board future deep-space probes
for them to automatically avoid such things as looking at the
sun or going into an uncontrolled tumble.  

I heard once that the voyagers had a failsafe routine built in
that essentially says "If you never hear from Earth again,
here's what to do."  This was a back up in the event a receiver
burnt out but the probe could still send data (limited, but
still some data).  

>Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
>cosmic phenomena.   
>
Since this would be a shutdown that may never be refunded for
startup, if some type of cosmic BEM took out the probe, it might
not be such a big loss.  Obviously you can't plan for
everything, but the most obvious things can be considered.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61030
From: hdsteven@solitude.Stanford.EDU (H. D. Stevens)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

In article <YAMAUCHI.93Apr21131325@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> >NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
|> >since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
|> >(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
|> >may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
|> >Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
|> >project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
|> >monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
|> 
|> This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
|> guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
|> build large, inflatable space structures.
|> 

The CU people have been, and continue to be big ozone scientists. So 
this is consistent. It is also consistent with the new "Comercial 
applications" that NASA and Clinton are pushing so hard. 
|> 
|> >Is NASA really supporting this junk?

Did anyone catch the rocket that was launched with a movie advert 
all over it? I think the rocket people got alot of $$ for painting 
up the sides with the movie stuff. What about the Coke/Pepsi thing 
a few years back? NASA has been trying to find ways to get other 
people into the space funding business for some time. Frankly, I've 
thought about trying it too. When the funding gets tight, only the 
innovative get funded. One of the things NASA is big on is co-funding. 
If a PI can show co-funding for any proposal, that proposal has a SIGNIFICANTLY
higher probability of being funded than a proposal with more merit but no 
co-funding. Once again, money talks!


-- 
H.D. Stevens
Stanford University			Email:hdsteven@sun-valley.stanford.edu
Aerospace Robotics Laboratory		Phone:	(415) 725-3293  (Lab)
Durand Building					(415) 722-3296  (Bullpen)
Stanford, CA 94305			Fax:	(415) 725-3377

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61031
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:
>
>........
>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>side of the booster rockets. 

Things could be worse. A lot worse! In the mid-eighties the
teen/adult sci-fi comic 2000AD (Fleetway) produced a short story
featuring the award winning character "Judge Dredd". The story
focussed on an advertising agency of the future who use high powered
multi-coloured lasers/search lights pointed at the moon to paint
images on the moon. Needless to say, this use hacked off a load of lovers,
romantics and werewolfs/crazies. The ad guys got chopped, the service
discontinued. A cautionary tale indeed!

Marvin Batty.
-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61032
From: swoithe@crackle.uucp (Stan Woithe)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 04/14/93

Hiya 

I'm a VERY amuture astronomer in Adelaide Australia, and today, I heard some
very interesting and exciting news from a local program on TV. As I couldn't
find anything on it on the news server, I have posted this. However, if it is
old information, tell me, and ill sue the TV station for saying they are 
'Up to date' ;-)

(Also, my news server could be slow. . so . . .!!!

I only caught the end of the article, so all the information on the topic
is not known to me at the moment.

The news is of a small 'psudo' planet outside the orbit of pluto found in a 
Hawiian obsevatory, supposably 'recently' - acording to the report.
It was meant to be about 150miles in diamater, and a faily large distance 
from the plutos orbit.  (it had a computer drawing, and the orbit distance
from pluto was about the same as neptune to pluto when they are furthest
apart.  This is all I found out about it. OH it is called Karna. (un-officially
).  
CAn anyone give any more information to me on it???

Thanx.

Brendan Woithe
swoithe@crackle.aelmg.adelaide.edu.au

BTW - if this is old news, does anyone know a good lawyer. . . .8)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61033
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

>>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
>>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
>>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.

>Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct
>some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered
>this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.

In fact, you can all direct your ire at the proper target by ingoring NASA 
altogether.  The rocket is a commercial launch vechicle - a Conestoga flying 
a COMET payload.  NASA is simply the primary customer.  I believe SDIO has a
small payload as well.  The advertising space was sold by the owners of the
rocket, who can do whatever they darn well please with it.  In addition, these
anonymous "observers" had no reason to be startled.  The deal made Space News
at least twice. 

>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. 

>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I think its only fair to find that out before everyone starts having a hissy
fit.  The fact that they bothered to use the conditional tense suggests that
it has not yet been approved.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61034
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:

>cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
>> All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
>> moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
>>development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
>> Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.
>> But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
>> realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.
>> Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
>> today?

>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.

Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.

>It didn't require gov't to
>fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit
>at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.

Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.

Your logic certainly applies to standard investment strategies.  However, the
concept of a prize for a difficult goal is done for different reasons, I 
suspect.  I'm not aware that Mr Orteig received any significant economic 
benefit from Lindbergh's flight.  Modern analogies, such as the prize for a
human powered helicopter face similar arguments.  There is little economic
benefit in such a thing.  The advantage comes in the new approaches developed
and the fact that a prize will frequently generate far more work than the 
equivalent amount of direct investment would.  A person who puts up $ X billion
for a moon base is much more likely to do it because they want to see it done
than because they expect to make money off the deal.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61035
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

I have a nice quote that I like (or as close as I can remember it).

If I say something that you think is crazy, ask me what I mean before you think
its crazy.. 

So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and
Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 

Sorry my two cents worth. Or is it two rubles worth?

The basic quote idea is from H. Beam Pipers book "Space Vikings". Its a good
book on how civilization can fall, and how it can be raised to new heights.

Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his
first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste.



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61036
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
> 
> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
> 
> 
> 
>     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>   -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --


Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean..
I know of a few that could launch a small package into space.
Not including Ariadne, and the Russian Sites.. I know "Poker Flats" here in
Alaska, thou used to be only sounding rockets for Auroral Borealous(sp and
other northern atmospheric items, is at last I heard being upgraded to be able
to put sattelites into orbit. 

Why must people in the US be fixed on using NASAs direct resources (Poker Flats
is runin part by NASA, but also by the Univesity of Alaska, and the Geophysical
Institute). Sounds like typical US cultural centralism and protectionism..
And people wonder why we have the multi-trillion dollar deficite(sp).
Yes, I am working on a spell checker..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61037
From: Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Surviving Large Accelerations?

Hi,
    I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in
there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them
when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to
the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he
estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not
be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published
in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?
Can this be extended to larger accelerations?

Thanks is advance...
-Amruth Laxman


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61038
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
exploration.

Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..
You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.

There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so
expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or
tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends 
of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of
the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there
normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and
other expenses you can owe more than what you made.
BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe
600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And
the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks.. 

Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go
cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the
eco-freaks or the protectionist.. 
Such fun we have in these interesting times..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61039
From: jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz)
Subject: SSRT Roll-Out Speech

                               SSRT ROLLOUT

                Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
                     The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
                                    
                  Mcdonnell Douglas - Huntington Beach
                              April 3,1993

     Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
miracles of our parent's doing.  For a decade and more the pundits
have told us - "you've lost it!"  The "me" generation is only
living on the accomplishments of the past.

     You and I have even begun to believe the pessimists.  We
listen in awe as the past generation tells of its triumphs.  Living
history they are.  We are privileged to hear those who did it tell
of it.  A few weeks ago some of this very team listened in awe as
General Bernie Schriever told of his team's work - and yes struggle
- to build this nation's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

     What stories can we tell?  Blurry-eyed telescopes?  Thousand
dollar toilet seats?  Even our space launch vehicles hearken only
of that past great time.  They are and seem destined to remain Gen.
Schriever's ICBMs.  I find it hard to swell with pride that the
best new space-lifter idea is to refurbish old Minuteman and
Poseidon ballistic missiles.

     Well - The pessimists are wrong.  The legacy is continuing. 
This event is proof.  To our technological parents: We've listened
to your stories.  We've caught your enthusiasm and can-do spirit. 
And we've learned from your achievements - and your mistakes.  Let
me honor one of you who was part of that history and the impetus
behind this history - Max Hunter.  You are one of the greatest
engineers of the firts great age of space exploration.  Your
insight and discipline built the Thor ICBM - later incorporated
into today's most successful launch vehicle - The Delta.

     You told us in the 60's that a new form of launch vehicle - a
single stage reusable rocket - can and should be built.  You
advocated this idea tirelessly.  It was elegantly simple, as are
all great breakthroughs.  You showed us how to build it.  You
convinced us it could be done.  You are working by our side to weld
its components into place.  Most important - you reminded us of a
prime engineering principle - undoubtably one you learned from the
generation before you - the generation that built transcontinental
aviation in the 1920's and 30's - build a little and test a little
and Max, you passed all of this on  to people like Pat Ladner who
started this program for the SDI.

     Douglas Aircraft didn't start with a DC-10.  They didn't even
start with a DC-3.  Our grandfathers built a little, tested a
little - even sold a little and made a little money - before they
moved on to the next step.  They didn't take a decade or more
before putting the first "rubber on the road."  Max Hunter - you
didn't take ten years to build Thor, and by God we're not going to
take ten years to show that low cost, single stage, reusable
aerospace transportation is real.

     We ended the cold war in a few short years.  It took the  same
team here today but a few years to show through the Strategic
Defense Initiative that the cold war must end.  We - you and us -
launched a series of satellites - The Delta experiments - in about
a year apiece.  This, more than anything else signaled our
commitment to end the impasse between ourselves and the Soviet
Union.  Those who made the decisions on both sides have underscored
the importance of our work in bringing about a new international
relationship.

     But it is the same team which is now  putting in place the
framework for an aerospace expansion that is our legacy for the
next generation.  We will make space access routine and affordable.

     We built this magnificent flying machine in two years.  This
summer a true rocket ship will take off and land on earth for the
first time.  Then we can and surely will build in the next three
years a reusable sub-orbital rocket.  It will allow us to use space
rapidly, affordably, and efficiently as no other nation can.  And
yes - we'll make a little money off it too!

     Then - and only then - we'll spend another three years to
build a fully reusable single stage to orbit system.  The DC-3 of
space will be a reality!  We may even be able to use some of the
rocket propulsion breakthroughs of our former cold war adversaries. 
What a wonderful irony if this SDI product and Russian efforts to
counter SDI merge to power mankind's next step to the stars!

     To be sure, we must guard against the temptations to leap to
the final answer.  Robert Goddard's first rockets weren't Saturn
V's!  If we succumb  to the temptation to ask  for just a few extra
dollars and a few more years to jump immediately to a full orbital
system - we will fail.  Max Hunter and his colleagues showed the
way.  Three years and a cloud of dust - in our case rocket
exhausts.  There is no short-cut.  If we expect to reshape the
world again - we must do it one brick at a time.  Minds on tasks at
hand!

     This project is real.  The torch of American technological
greatness is being passed.  We are Americans.  This machine is
American.  Let's go fly it!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61040
From: jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz)
Subject: U.S. Space Foundation Speech


                          Speech by Pete Worden
                                    
          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference
                                    
                       Colorado Springs, Colorado
                                    
                             April 15, 1993


     What a delightful opportunity to cause some trouble.  For
providing me this forum I would sincerely like to thank the U.S.
Space Foundation.  My topic today is the Single Stage Rocket
Technology rocket or SSRT.  By I intend to speak of more.  How to
lower the cost and make rapid progress.  SSRT is to my mind --
and I hope to convince you -- the erupting a new rallying cry for
our generation in space -- Faster, Cheaper, and Better.

     Faster, Cheaper, Better and SSRT represent the passing of a
torch from one technical generation to another.  It is a new
thing to be sure -- but it is also a relearning of old things
from past masters.

     When we rolled out the SSRT baby two weeks ago, so called
experts told us it violates the laws of physics -- it made no
sense.  For example, Dr. Eberhart Rachtin - former president of
the Aerospace Corp., said of SSRT in the L.A. Times that it,
"defies the best principles of launching payloads into space." 
Well Dr. Rachtin -- you've made us mad!  What are these
principles that SSRT defies?

     Well I'll tell you.  It violates the principle that you need
a giant program office to build space hardware.  It violates the
"fact" that it takes 20 years to build something new.  And it
violates the truism that you cant do anything significant for
less than many billions of dollars.

     It took some of the last generation's experts to teach us
some new/old lessons.  Werhner Von Braun's first rocket was not a
Saturn V.  General Schriever's ICBM's didn't take ten years to
demonstrate.  And the X-1 airplane didn't cost $1 billion.

     It took one of the great engineers of the 1950's to remind
us of these truths -- Max Hunter.  Max, to remind you, was a
senior engineer in the Thor IRBM program, and old faster, better,
cheaper success story.  Max has been persistent in a vision of a
single stage reusable space launch system since the 1960's. 
Because he knew it had to be done in affordable steps - Build a
little, Test a little.

     Next he persuaded us to do a technology demonstration.  We
didn't solicit a bunch of requirements -- they'd just change
every few years anyway.  [ not included in the speech -- The
ALS/NLS has such ephemeral requirements that it would better
known as "Shape Shifter" than "Space Lifter."  We didn't spend a
lot money -- this X-Rocket only cost $60 million.  When's the
last time we even built a new airplane for that?  And it didn't
take a lot of time to build -- McDonnell Douglas completed it in
18 months.  Finally, the government program office consisted of
one very over-worked Air Force Major -- motivated in part by the
threat that he'd get to ride on it in a strapped-on lawn chair if
it ran over cost or schedule.

     As I described what SSRT is -- and isn't keep in mind its
only a first step.  There are several more steps -- and steps
that can easily fail -- before the U.S. can field an SSTO.  But
each step should follow the same principles -- a small management
team -- a few years technology demonstration -- and a modest
budget.

     Let me show a few details on SSRT and how it might evolve:
(See charts)

     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
could do is soft-land on Earth!

     But we do have an answer.  We can follow their build a
little, test a little philosophy to produce a truly affordable
and routine access to space.  I know there are nay sayers among
you -- those who say SSRT is a stunt.  It needs more thermal
protection, the engines are wrong, it would be better to land
horizontally, etc, etc.

     I say to you -- we'll see you at White Sands in June.  You
bring your view-graphs, and I'll bring my rocketship.  If we do
what we say we can do, then you let us do the next step.  [ not
included in the speech:  If we fail -- you still have your
program offices, staff summary sheets, requirement analyses, and
decade long programs.]

     I bet on my generation and Max Hunter's idea -- Any Takers?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61041
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
|
|>Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)
|
>Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!

Let it never be said that an opportunity was missed to put someone down.



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61042
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?


Well thank you dennis for your as usual highly detailed and informative 
posting.   

The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?   

Now if it uses storables,  then  how long would it take for the russians
to equip something at cape york?

If  Proton were launched from a western site,  how would it compare to the
T4/centaur?   As i see it, it should lift  very close to the T4.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61043
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

In article <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>
>Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his
>first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste.
>
>
Piper lived in my town (Williamsport, PA) when he killed himself.  It
was in the early '60's.  He had had more than a few books published by
that time, but he was down on his luck financially.  Rumor was that he
was hunting urban pigeons with birdshot for food.  He viewed himself as
a resourceful man, and (IMO) decided to check out gracefully if he
couldn't support himself.  The worst part is that John Campbell, the
long-time editor of Astounding/Analog SF magazine had cut a check for
Piper's most recent story, and said check was in the mail.  If Campbell
had known Piper's straits, I'm sure he would have phoned to say hang on.
Campbell was like that.

I wish it had happened differently.  I always enjoyed Piper's stuff.

Doug Loss



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61044
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:


>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

Maybe in the 24th century they could do gamma ray spectroscopy on
distant asteroids with an orbiting observatory, but here in the
primitive 20th we have to send a probe there to get gamma ray
spectroscopy done.

>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

You have the info on Mayan Television yet?

>This article is in the public domain.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61045
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

You forget that Apollo was a Government program and had to start 
relatively from scratch. Some people at NASA think that this could work. 
One of them replied to me personally after I posted this original message 
several days ago. I have heard Jerry Pournelle suggest this idea before.

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61046
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:

>> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

>This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

>If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
>terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
>selling every bit that promises to make money? I guess we really
>deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
>guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

>	Another depressed planetary citizen,
>	hoover


This isn't inherently bad.

This isn't really light pollution since it will only
be visible shortly before or after dusk (or during the
day).

(Of course, if night only lasts 2 hours for you, you're probably going
to be inconvienenced. But you're inconvienenced anyway in that case).

Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, and most of us aren't Indo
European; those people speaking Indo-Eurpoean languages often have
much non-indo-european ancestry and cultural background. So:
please try to remember that there are more human activities than
those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
Priesthood.

And why act distressed that someone's found a way to do research
that doesn't involve socialism?

It certianly doesn't mean we deserve to die.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61047
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu+ wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
+
+I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
+really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
+Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  
+
Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance
which expanded in vacuum. Once inflated the substance was no longer
needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
disastrous deflation.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61048
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: First Spacewalk

In article <C5suMG.2rF.1@cs.cmu.edu+ flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
+At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
+(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.
+
+Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?
+
+Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

I, for one, would be an avid reader of a sci.space.ussr.what.really.
happened.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61049
From: dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon)
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

 ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!

  This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary, 
ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!

  Ether, the theoretical propogation media of electro-magnetic 
waves, was concluded not to exist, based on the results of the 
Michelson-Moreley experiment conducted a century ago. 

  I propose that those conclusions are flawed, based on the fact 
that the experiment was designed to look for a flow parallel to the 
earth's surface, not perpindicular. (Due to the prevailing assumption 
that the earth traveled through the ether as a ball through the wind)

  The reversal of the that conclusion, a pivotal keystone in the 
development of modern scientific thought, could have ramifications 
of BIBLICAL proportions through out the WORLD!!

  REMEMBER: Einstien said Imagination is greater than knowledge!!

  
1
  I dream like this: ether based reality
 
  The ether is like a fluid out of phase with our reality. Creations 
start as a lattice placed into the ether. Given a spin, the lattices
both drag the fluid, like a margarita blender, and ingest it, 
converting it, distilling localized mass, time and energy. 
(non-spinning lattice = "dark matter")

  The earth isn't exactly spinning, around the sun. Picture an image 
of a galaxy; we haven't any videos of them spinning. Picture us 
being stationary, and the sun's image being dragged across the sky by 
the spinning ether field. (Picture an onion, each layer of which is 
spinning a little faster than the next. A thread shot at the inner 
kernel would be stretched diagonally sideways, its head being in a 
faster shell than its tail, until it finally intersected the ground 
of the inner kernel, its direction vector being straight down, but 
its "foot print" being a line, not a point. [sunrise, sunset])
  
  The moon isn't exactly orbiting us. It is a parasite, (non self 
spin sustaining ) being dragged in the earth's ether field, which is 
itself in the sun's much more powerful field. Our seasons are the 
wobble of earth's axis, like a top slowing down. The "orbit" of the
earth around the sun is all of the stars' images being dragged around
by the sun's ether feild.

  The earth, moon and sun are about the same size and "distance" 
apart. Its just that the time between them varies greatly, because 
the "path" is not the same. The moon's lattice in the ether is like 
sticking a fork in a plate of spaghetti and giving the plate a half 
turn. The sun's lattice has so much spin that its like the fork has 
got the whole plate of noodles wound up. The piece of light going to 
the moon can slide down the spaghetti and maybe make a "j" hook at 
the end. The piece of light going to the sun has to go around the 
whole plate, like a needle in a record, before it gets there. 

  With a pencil, compass, and rule, draw a diagram of how the moon 
can be about as big as "earth's" shadow upon it, and at other times 
totally eclipse the sun. Look in the sky. except for your Knowledge, 
would you guess that they are about the same size, just because they 
look about the same size?

   O .     - -                 E     O   O   O   S
 E       /     \            
    M    |      |      OR                M    
         \ _ _ /                         
       S                           
       
  The full moon, quarter moon etc. is the difference between rate
of ether spins. What we are looking at is a rotating "turntable view" 
of the moon, only half of which is facing the sun. ( I've seen a 
half moon within about 120 degrees (of sky) of the sun, during the 
day. Try and draw that "earth shadow.") Its only the moon's image 
which appears to orbit us. No matter where it is, the light part is 
the part facing the sun, and the dark part is the half facing away 
from the sun, even when it appears to be behind us.

  "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is 
closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase 
of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion. 
(defining edge = 0 ether spin) What we are seeing could be 
essentially happening now. The "piece" of light may have experienced 
many years, but the trip could be very quick, our time.

  To time travel or warp space I might consider learning to 
de-spin myself. (phase out my mass) Good luck trying to design 
a propulsion system to drag around a space-time locality. (its like 
trying to move a balloon by shooting a squirt gun from within)

  To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history. I'd 
look in the book of life. (or holy grail etc.) Brain waves just 
might carry decipherable data. I'd start looking on some part of the 
spectra said to be unusable, due to all the background noise. (4+ 
billion humans?) I'd totally isolate myself, record me thinking DOG 
backwards, and learn to read what I got. (Microsoft Holy Grail card 
for Pentium!)

  Next, concluding that my thoughts were recorded on a non time-bound 
media, the ether, and that it is I who move forward (in time). I 
would try to temporarily locally reverse the flow, (of time, which 
I'd start looking for as flowing opposite magnetism, pole to pole. 
[Why not?]) perhaps by passing a LARGE, FLAT DC current through a 
two foot diameter. coil or choke or something, and seeing what I 
could get with my machine's receiver next to it.  

  If you don't think you'll live to see it, consider this: QUIT 
PUTTING THE REPRODUCTIVE KEYS OF OTHER LIFE IN YOUR BODY! All of 
life's data could be written on the wind, (ether) not just our 
thoughts. DNA could be a little receiver or file access code. By 
eating SEEDS, we could be jamming our reception, or receiving plant 
instructions. Try eating seed bearing fruit. Maybe those Greek or 
biblical guys did live hundreds of years. I'm curios to see what 
they did and ate. Don't worry if your hair stops growing. (Maybe we 
don't need to eat at all, the cosmos are formed from nothing, and 
that is creating matter! I only need enough to bounce around. Where 
did the household concept 'immortal' come from? Wheat is a weed, it 
is programmed to pull from the soil, reproduce like hell, and then 
die)

  Warning about writing to the past:
I had a little dream of being in a world, in the near parallel 
future, lying along a path of history which we have diverged from. 
There were; twelve telepathic, glowing beings, who looked like an 
Oscar award and who had always been, a dark one who looked like us, 
and then myself. The dark one was in the process of making the 
others into gods, (he had to teach them what that meant) by 
"advising" them in their past. Basically, he manipulated them into 
reproducing, and raising their children on his seed. He said that 
the little ones who looked different were a sub-species, meant to 
provide service. He carefully combed through history, rewriting it 
in his favor, pulling like a weed anything that compromised his 
control. He enticed recruits by sending them his visions, saying 
that there was immortality at the end of the road for only twelve 
souls: kill or be killed. The amount of control he could exert was 
finite, though, as at every change he made, a void would appear in 
our reality. The universe one day ended 100 meters from us: it 
seemed odd, but we couldn't remember how else it should be. Then 
some of the twelve were no more. Finally, when he could prune no 
more, and reality stopped just beyond his fingertips, he stepped 
through his portal to the past, to bask, over and over, in all that 
he had created. I made a few more changes, and lost my body, 
existing only on the wind. 

  MORAL: Its very possible to eliminate from your reality the souls 
whose will's are not in harmony with yours (Golden Rule - treat 
others as you wish to be treated) I.E., you could end up along a 
lonely thread of time with murderers or flowery brown-nosers for 
playmates. (its not eternal, there's more than one way back) 

 Accepting rides to the past:
Once here, the one who looks like us sells rides, he can make you a 
Prince, or a Queen, or you can live as a god in ancient Greece. Go 
ahead, repeat the third grade as often as you like, Adam henry. 
I Hope you like inspecting your socks. Careful though, if he likes 
your work, but thinks you're getting wise, he can direct you to cross 
paths with your old self, and you'll vanish as you rewrite your own 
course of history, none the wiser.

  As we pass the point along the parallel line where he stepped 
back in time, his hierarchy will lose its direction. He can still 
make changes while he's here, its just that that is work, and with 
every 'adjustment', this becomes less the world he cultivated, which 
loosens his grip, and his organization is suddenly one branch less. 
But he can't see the change. The basic nature of man is good. He had 
to apply his hand to achieve his world. As he now tightens his hand 
to retain what he built, the more sand slips through his fingers. 

  How about public computer access to the I.R.S. ? Its our country, 
our money, and they're spending it on us, RIGHT? Imagine this: 
Washington marks the next cost at 8, IRS collects 10, gives 5 to 
congress, and just absolutely buries 5. Congress borrows 2. The banks 
are making, what, a 30% margin (interest) on our government? Big 
corporations are ecstatic if they can do a 10% margin. What do the 
banks do with it? Hold some on a carrot to the world, sure, but 
mostly, bury it. WHY? Food production is 2% GNP?, construction 6% ? 14 
hours to build your auto?  The people are spending all of their time 
to buy back a tenth of what they produce. Have we been deceived? If 
we are more efficient, why is it getting harder to get by? What if 
the point is just to keep the people busy making widgets? 

  In that other reality, I shouted to the twelve, "its chaos!" They 
said, "no, its order." He defined chaos as that which is he was not 
able to control.

  Rain forest: The problem could be that all the water in its canopy 
would hide the  location of an indigenous people who have no 
language. (telepathic; and 'vanishing' the closest knowledge of death)
(think of the spine as a transceiver, if it is on the ground and 
pointed up, you can locate it from above) These people are probably 
naive as children, but very, very tough to kill. Also, They should 
be able to tell you stories about the dark one that I talk about. 
They can hear him. I think that Ham and world band radio old timers 
might have a story to tell on this. These people would be on a 
different frequency than us as they aren't eating seeds.

  Famine relief: When I make my diet almost all whole wheat, I get a 
huge belly, lose muscle mass, sleep A LOT, and get sick. When I eat 
only fresh fruit, I get more energy, a Hollywood-flat belly, and 
need a lot less sleep.

  UN. Peace Keeping; There is fighting and killing all over. The 
troops go in when there is no bread on the shelf. (its OK to kill 
each other, just make sure there is enough to eat.)

  Somalia: What is disturbing is energetic, gun carrying, three foot 
tall sixteen year-olds, who eat nothing but some roots that they 
suck on. It is not so much that their growth is stunted, it is that 
they aren't dying at a rate of 50 of 60 years per life. 

  Women with children, Babes in arms: Historical references to women 
and children as a single unit could mean that infants were not cut 
from the umbilical cord. (and hence, were not breast fed) I think 
that there may be some very interesting results to this, such as 
mother-child telepathy, and blue blooded infants. There are examples 
of this practice in the aquatic mammal kingdom to investigate.

  That guy is the master of illusion, and the ultimate liar. He 
tells it first, and then just follows the thread of time in which 
the people are willing to buy it. (in which he can make it so) He'll 
play a poker face up until he thinks he's cornered, and then he'll 
whine, beg and grovel. All it means to him is that you're willing to 
live on the ground work that he has laid, that is, that he was 
right, and he didn't over play his hand, and he won't need to go 
back and try another thread of time. You have ultimate control over 
your destiny, just don't live along a path that leads to a reality 
in which you don't want to be a part of. 

  I don't claim to be the first to think these things, its just 
that the others could have been 'pruned' from our path. Maybe these 
thoughts given to me were laid down on the track of time, after him.

  
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61050
From: pmolloy@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (G. Patrick Molloy)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu 
writes:
> Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
> exploration.
> 
> Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..
> You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.
> 
> There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so
> expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or
> tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends 
> of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of
> the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there
> normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and
> other expenses you can owe more than what you made.
> BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe
> 600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And
> the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks.. 
> 
> Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go
> cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the
> eco-freaks or the protectionist.. 
> Such fun we have in these interesting times..
> 
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

The current mining regulations and fees were set in the 1800's!
What the so-called "eco-freaks" want to do is to simply bring those
fees in line with current economic reality.  Currently, mining companies
can get access to minerals on public lands for ridiculously low prices --
something like $50!  The mining lobby has for decades managed to block
any reform of these outdated fees.  In fact, the latest attempt to reform
them was again blocked -- President Clinton "compromised" by taking the
mining fee reforms out of his '94 budget, and plans to draft separate
legislation to fight that battle.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you take this to talk.environment.

G. Patrick Molloy
Huntsville, Alabama

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61051
From: jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
>> > > 
>> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
>
>> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ...
>
>> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.
>
>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

Neil Gehrels is Prof. Tom Gehrels son.  Tom Gehrels was the discoverer
of P/Gehrels 3 (as well as about 4 other comets - the latest of which
does not bear his name, but rather the name "Spacewatch" since he was
observing with that system when he found the latest comet).  

>-- 
>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

---------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti 
{jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
---------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61052
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

This discussion is better followed in talk.politics.space
Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61053
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <1993Apr21.210712.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
>Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean...

In fact, you probably want to avoid US Government anything for such a
project.  The pricetag is invariably too high, either in money or in
hassles.

The important thing to realize here is that the big cost of getting to
the Moon is getting into low Earth orbit.  Everything else is practically
down in the noise.  The only part of getting to the Moon that poses any
new problems, beyond what you face in low orbit, is the last 10km --
the actual landing -- and that is not immensely difficult.  Of course,
you *can* spend sagadollars (saga- is the metric prefix for beelyuns
and beelyuns) on things other than the launches, but you don't have to.

The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for
more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit.
For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop
a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper
might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less
ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)  Any plan for doing
sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
money in a big way.

Given this, questions like whose launch facilities you use are *not* a
minor detail; they are very important to the cost of the launches, which
dominates the cost of the project.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61054
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

In article <EfpX7WS00Uh7QAoP1S@andrew.cmu.edu> Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>... here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
>fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
>course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?

This sounds a bit high to me.  Still higher accelerations have been endured
*very briefly*, during violent deceleration.  If we're talking sustained
acceleration, I think 30-odd gees has been demonstrated using water immersion.

I doubt that any of this generalizes to another order of magnitude.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61055
From: nick@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de (   Nikan B Firoozye )
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

A related question (which I haven't given that much serious thought 
to): at what lattitude is the average length of the day (averaged 
over the whole year) maximized? Is this function a constant=
12 hours? Is it truly symmetric about the equator? Or is
there some discrepancy due to the fact that the orbit is elliptic
(or maybe the difference is enough to change the temperature and
make the seasons in the southern hemisphere more bitter, but
is far too small to make a sizeable difference in daylight
hours)?

I want to know where to move.

	-Nick Firoozye
	nick@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61056
From: rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
to sunrise and sunset times.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: 410-455-2458
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: rostamian@umbc.bitnet
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: rouben@math.umbc.edu
======================================================================
Definitions:

z = the tilt of the axis of the planet away from the normal to its
orbital plane.  In case of the Earth z is about 23.5 degrees, I think.
I do not recall the exact value.  In case of Uranus, z is almost
90 degrees.

u = latitude of the location where the length of the day is measured.
Paris is at about 45 degrees.  North pole is at 90.

a = angular position of the planet around the sun.  As a goes from
0 to 360 degrees, the planet makes a full circle around the sun.
The spring equinox occurs at a=0.

L = daylight fraction = (duration of daylight)/(duration of a full day).
On the equator (u=0) L is always 1/2.  Near the north pole (u=90 degrees)
L is sometimes one and sometimes zero, depending on the time of the year.

Computation:
Define the auxiliary angles p and q by:
sin p = sin a sin z
cos q = h ( tan u tan p ),       (0 < q < 180 degrees)

Conclusion:
L = q / 180   (if q is measured in degrees)
L = q / pi    (if q is measured in radians)

Wait!  But what is h?
The cutoff function h is defined as follows:

h (s) = s    if  |s| < 1
      = 1    if   s > 1
      = -1   if   s < 1

As an interesting exercise, plot L versus a.   The graph will shows
how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
the arctic circle.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: 410-455-2458
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: rostamian@umbc.bitnet
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: rouben@math.umbc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61057
From: dfegan@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Egan)
Subject: Re: *** HELP I NEED SOME ADDRESSES ***

In <1993Apr20.041300.21721@ncsu.edu> jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:

>    I'm trying to get mailing addresses for the following
>companies.  Specifically, I need addresses for their personnel
>offices or like bureau.  The companies are:

>	- Space Industries, Inc.  (Somewhere in Houston)
          101 Courageous Dr. 
          Leage City, TX  77573
          Phone: (713) 538-6000   

         
Good Luck!
Doug 
--
 Doug Egan                                  "It's not what you got -
 Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co.       It's what you give."          
 Houston, TX                                                  -Tesla      
 ***** email:  egan@blkbox.com  *****                                    

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61058
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr22.003719.101323@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>prb@access.digex.com (Pat) Pontificated: 
>>
>>
>
>I heard once that the voyagers had a failsafe routine built in
>that essentially says "If you never hear from Earth again,
>here's what to do."  This was a back up in the event a receiver
>burnt out but the probe could still send data (limited, but
>still some data).  
>

Voyager  has the unusual  luck to be on a stable trajectory out of the
solar system.   All it's doing is collecting  fields  data,  and routinely
squirting it down.  One of the mariners is also in stable
solar orbit,  and still providing similiar  solar data.  

Something  in a planetary orbit,  is subject to much more complex forces.

Comsats, in "stable " geosynch  orbits,  require  almost daily
stationkeeping operations.   

For the occasional  deep space bird,  like PFF  after pluto,  sure
it could be left on  "auto-pilot".  but things like  galileo or
magellan,  i'd suspect they need enough  housekeeping that
even untended they'd  end up unusable after a while.

The better question  should be.

Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
to support these kind of ongoing science missions.

pat

	When ongoing ops are mentioned,  it seems to  always quote  Operations
and Data analysis.  how much would it cost to collect the data
and let it be analyzed  whenever.  kinda like all that landsat data
that sat around for 15 years before someone analyzed it for the ozone hole.

>>Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
>>cosmic phenomena.   
>>
>Since this would be a shutdown that may never be refunded for
>startup, if some type of cosmic BEM took out the probe, it might
>not be such a big loss.  Obviously you can't plan for
>everything, but the most obvious things can be considered.
>
>
>/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
>| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
>| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
>| what I said is not what I meant."                             |



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61059
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

 Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.

they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like
the moon when theyare done.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61060
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.



I once read an article on  Computer technology  which stated that 
every new computer technology was actually lower and slower then what it
replaced.  Silicon was less  effective then the germanium  products
then available.   GaAs  was less capable then Silicon.  Multi-processors
were slower then  existent single processors.

What the argument was, though was that these new technologies promised either
theoretically future higher performance  or lower cost or higher densities.

I think that the DC-1  may g=fit into this same model.

ELV's can certainly launch more weight  then  a SSRT,  but 
an SSRT offers the prospect of  greater cycle times and  lower costs.

This is kind of a speculative posting,  but I thought i'd throw it out as
a hjistorical framework  for those interested in the project.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61061
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
#The better question  should be.
#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.

Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
changing them to a seperate agency help anything?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61062
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: DC-X: Choice of a New Generation (was Re: SSRT Roll-Out Speech)

In article <1r4uos$jid@access.digex.net> jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz) writes:

>		   Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
>			The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
>
>	Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
>up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
>nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
>miracles of our parent's doing. 

>                          Speech by Pete Worden
>          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference

>     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
>generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
>and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
>can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
>could do is soft-land on Earth!

Just out of curiousity, how old is Worden?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61063
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
>exploration.
>Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..

If raw materials where to cost enough that getting them from space would
be cost effective then the entire world economy would colapse long
before the space mines could be built.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61064
From: ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick)
Subject: DC-X & DC-Y


Hi guys,
	I've been hearing lots of talk on the net about DC-X and DC-Y,
but none of the many posts actually explain what they are !!! Sorry if
this is a FAQ, but would somebody please explain to me what they are.
Reply by Email please . . . thanks.

	Andy

ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk
-- 
                                  ----------------------------------- 
Andy Jonathan J. Broderick,      | "I have come that they might have |
Rutherford Lab., UK              |  life, and have it to the full"   |
Mail : ajjb@adam2.bnsc.rl.ac.uk  |  - Jesus Christ                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61065
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.

	Mind you, my father was a vacuum-tube fan in the 60s (Switched
to solid-state in the mid-seventies and then abruptly died; no doubt
there's a lesson in that) and his account could have been biased.

							James Nicoll

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61066
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr21.162800.168967@locus.com> todd@phad.la.locus.com (Todd Johnson) writes:

   As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one
   drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need
   to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization
   on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.

Hmmm. It actually isn't all that much, is it? Like about 2 million
km^2 (if you think that sounds like a lot, it's only a few tens of m^2
per burger that said organization sold last year). You'd be best off
with a reflective substance that could be sprayed thinly by an
unmanned craft in lunar orbit (or, rather, a large set of such craft).
If you can get a reasonable albedo it would be visible even at new
moon (since the moon itself is quite dark), and _bright_ at full moon.
You might have to abandon the colour, though.

Buy a cheap launch system, design reusable moon -> lunar orbit
unmanned spraying craft, build 50 said craft, establish a lunar base
to extract TiO2 (say: for colour you'd be better off with a sulphur
compound, I suppose) and some sort of propellant, and Bob's your
uncle.  I'll do it for, say, 20 billion dollars (plus changes of
identity for me and all my loved ones). Delivery date 2010.

Can we get the fast-food chain bidding against the fizzy-drink
vendors? Who else might be interested?

Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not
much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km
inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your
key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of
identity).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61067
From: chico@ccsun.unicamp.br (Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues)
Subject: New planet/Kuiper object found?


	Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
named the object Karla.

	The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
should be composed by rocks and ices.

	Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
new planet or a Kuiper object?

	Thanks in advance.

	Francisco.

-----------------------=====================================----the stars,----
|    ._,               | Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues    |       o   o     |
|  ,_| |._/\           |                                   |     o         o |
|  |       |o/^^~-._   | COTUCA-Colegio Tecnico da UNICAMP |   o             |
|/-'    BRASIL      | ~|                                   |  o      o o     |
|\__/|_            /'  | Depto de Processamento de Dados   |  o    o  o  o   |
|      \__  Cps   | .  |                                   |   o  o  o    o  |
|        |   * __/'    | InterNet : chico@ccsun.unicamp.br |     o o      o  |
|        >   /'        |            cotuca@ccvax.unicamp.br|             o   |
|      /'   /'         | Fone/Fax : 55-0192-32-9519        | o         o     |
|     ~~^\/'           | Campinas - SP - Brasil            |    o   o        |
-----------------------=====================================----like dust.----


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61068
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Golden & Space ages

Pat sez;
>Oddly, enough,  The smithsonian calls the lindbergh years
>the golden age of flight.  I would call it the granite years,
>reflecting the primitive nature of it.  It was  romantic,
>swashbuckling daredevils,  "those daring young men in their flying
>machines".  But in reality, it sucked.  Death was a highly likely
>occurence,  and  the environment blew.

Yeah, but a windscreen cut down most of it.  Canopies ended it completely.

Of course, the environment in space continues to suck :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61069
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Subject: message from Space Digest





Press Release No.19-93
Paris, 22 April 1993

Users of ESA's Olympus satellite report on the outcome of
their experiments

"Today Europe's space telecommunications sector would not
be blossoming as it now does, had OLYMPUS not provided
a testbed for the technologies and services of the 1990s". This
summarises the general conclusions of 135 speakers and 300
participants at the Conference on Olympus Utilisation held in
Seville on 20-22-April 1993. The conference was organised by
the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Spanish Centre for
the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI).

OLYMPUS has been particularly useful :
-      in bringing satellite telecommunications to thousands of
       new users, thanks to satellite terminals with very small
       antennas (VSATs). OLYMPUS experiments have tested
       data transmission, videoconferencing, business television,
       distance teaching and rural telephony, to give but a few
       examples.

-      in opening the door to new telecommunications services
       which could not be accommodated on the crowded lower-
       frequency bands; OLYMPUS was the first satellite over
       Europe to offer capacity in the 20/30 GHz band.

-      in establishing two-way data relay links  OLYMPUS
       received for the first time in Europe, over several months,
       high-volume data from a low-Earth orbiting spacecraft and
       then distributed it to various centres in Europe.

When OLYMPUS was launched on 12 July 1989 it was the
world's largest telecommunications satellite; and no other
satellite has yet equalled its versatility in combining four
different payloads in a wide variety of frequency bands.

OLYMPUS users range from individual experimenters to some
of the world's largest businesses. Access to the satellite is
given in order to test new telecommunications techniques or
services; over the past four years some 200 companies and
organisations made use of this opportunity, as well as over
100 members of the EUROSTEP distance-learning
organisation.



As the new technologies and services tested by these
OLYMPUS users enter the commercial market, they then
make use of operational satellites such as those of
EUTELSAT.

OLYMPUS utilisation will continue through 1993 and 1994,
when the spacecraft will run out of fuel as it approaches the
end of its design life.

       

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61070
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu>, schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.130503.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>|> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
>|> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
>|> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
>|> > that might just work.
>|> > 
>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
>|> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
>|> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
>|> > 
>|> > --
>|> >   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
>|> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
>|> ====
>|> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
>|> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
>|> in Australia..
>|> Anybody game for a contest!
>|> 
>|> ==
>|> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>
>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
>

Feasability study??  What a wimp!!  While you are studying, others would be
doing.  Too damn many engineers doing way too little engineering.

"He who sits on his arse sits on his fortune"  - Sir Richard Francis Burton
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61071
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)


In article <1qn044$gq5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>I thought that under emergency conditions,  the STS  can
>put down at any good size Airport.  IF it could take a C-5 or a
>747, then it can take an orbiter.   You just need a VOR/TAC
>
>I don't know if they need ILS.

DFW was designed with the STS in mind (which really mean very little).  Much of
their early PR material had scenes with a shuttle landing and two or three
others pulled up to gates.  I guess they were trying to stress how advanced the
airport was.

For Dallas types:  Imagine the fit Grapevine and Irving would be having if the
shuttle WAS landing at DFW. (For the rest, they are currently having some power
struggles between the airport and surrounding cities).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61072
From: hancock@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (thomas hancock)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
The Centaur is controlled technology..
State Dept will not allow it to be used outside of US. Sorry.
>In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>>What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
>>than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?

>I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau) 
>was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost
>payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from
>2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing
>with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now
>I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the 
>successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early
>results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in 
>Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue 
>their development. 

>The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
>is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
>which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
>launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
>are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
>up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
>thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
>Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
>how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
>bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
>and erected on the pad?  

>They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
>(unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
>any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
>US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
>problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

>Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
>Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
>Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61073
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

The only ether I see here is the stuff you must
have been breathing before you posted...

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61074
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr21152344@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government
>whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost
>effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked
>in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)

What do you mean? Are you saying they thought the effort was
profitable or that the money was efficiently spent (providing max
value per money spent)?

I think they would answer yes on ballance to both questions. Exceptions
would be places like the US from the French Indian War to the end of
the US Revolution. 

But even after the colonies revolted or where given independance the
British engaged in very lucrative trading with the former colonies.
Five years after the American Revolution England was still the largest
US trading partner.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61075
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>+
>Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance
>which expanded in vacuum. 

Called "gas".

>Once inflated the substance was no longer
>needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
>This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
>disastrous deflation.

The balloons were in sufficiently low orbit that they experienced
some air resistance.  When they were finally punctured, this 
preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
that remained were easily visible for some time before
reentry, though no longer useful as a passive transponder.

The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61076
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
>$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
>moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
>transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
>more than needed.

>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

But Allen, if you can assume the existence of an SSTO there is no need
to have the contest in the first place.  I would think that what we
want to get out of the contest is the development of some of these
'cheaper' ways of doing things; if they already exist, why flush $1G
just to get someone to go to the Moon for a year?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61077
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
>
>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
Why use a ground launch pad. It is entirely posible to launch from altitude.
This was what the Shuttle was originally intended to do! It might be seriously
cheaper. 

Also, what about bio-engineered CO2 absorbing plants instead of many LOX bottles?
Stick 'em in a lunar cave and put an airlock on the door.

-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61078
From: pearson@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (N. Shirlene Pearson)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:


>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Would you mind posting the responses you get?
I am also interested, and there may be others.

Thanks,

N. Shirlene Pearson
pearson@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61079
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>Among other things, the software people worked very hard to get things
>right for the major pre-flight simulations, and considered a failure
>during those simulations to be nearly as bad as an in-flight failure.
>As a result, the number of major-simulation failures could be counted
>on one hand, and the number of in-flight failures was zero.
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
>(None of the experimenters could afford it.)
>--
>All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>
News-Software: UReply 3.1
X-X-From: Wingert@VNET.IBM.com (Bret Wingert)
References: <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
            <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu>

In <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
 ========================================================================
A couple of points on this thread.

1. We have been using our processes since way before Challenger.  Challenger
   in and of it self did not uncover flaws.

2. What Mr. Spencer says is by and large true.  We have a process that is
   not dependent on "sophisticated tools"  (CASE tools?).  However, tools
   cannot fix a bad process.  Also, tool support for HAL/S (the Shuttle
   Language) is somewhat limited.

3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
   This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.

4. Feel free to call me if you or your organization is interested in more info
   on our software development process.

Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077


Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61080
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1993Apr21.204941.15055@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
>Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember,
>this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad,
>just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.

Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap into
making statement without thinking them out. 

Wanna guess which today?

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
of a private Titan pad? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61081
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 04:54:03 GMT, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu said:

nsmca> So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but
nsmca> so was Wilbur and Orville Wright, and quite a few others..

This is a common misconception.  There was nothing "off the wall"
about the Wright Brothers.  They were in correspondance with a number
of other experimenters (Octave Chanute, Lillienthal, etc), they flew
models, they had a wind tunnel.  In short, they were quite mainstream
and were not regarded as odd or eccentric by the community.

I suggest you read The Bishop's Boys or the biography by Harry Gates?
Combs?  (I can never remember which it is--the guy that had the FBOs
and owned Learjet for a while).  These are both in print and easily
obtainable.  The Bishop's Boys is in trade paperback, even.

Even better would be the multi-volume set of the Wrights' writings,
but this is out of print, rare, and hideously expensive.



--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61082
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5w5F8.3LC.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not
>much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km
>inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your
>key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of
>identity).

	I've heard of sillier things, like a well-known utility company
wanting to buy an 'automated' boiler-cleaning system which uses as many
operators as the old system, and which rumour has it costs three million
more per unit. Automation is more 'efficient' although by what scale they are
not saying...

							James Nicoll

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61083
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:


>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.

Yes, and I do everyone else.  Why, you may wonder, don't I do 'Fred'?
Well, that would just be too *obvious*, wouldn't it?  Oh yeah, this
isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61084
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

They must be shipping that good Eau Clair acid to California now.

Tom Freebairn 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61085
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

In article <C5ut0z.CtG@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1r46ofINNdku@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>>orbiting billboard...
>>
>>I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
>>object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
>>velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
>>you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  
>Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen),
>you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space
>Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for
>an antisatellite weapon... :-)

Well Henry, we are often reminded how CANADA is not a part of the United States
(yet).  You could have quite a commercial A-SAT, er sky-cleaning service going
in a few years. 

"Toronto SkySweepers:  Clear skies in 48 hours, or your money back."
	   Discount rates available for astro-researchers. 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61086
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
>>> The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit
>>> of Saint Louis venture to his financial backers. But I strongly suspect
>>> that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to realize that much more
>>> was at stake than $25,000. Could it work with the moon? Who are the
>>> far-sighted financial backers of today?
 
>>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.
> Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.
 
  Of course; sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was referring to the fact
that far more aeronautical development took place in the '30's.  For much
of the '20's, the super-abundance of Jennies and OX-5 engines held down the
industry.  By 1926, many of the obsolete WWI aircraft had been retired
and Whirlwind had their power/weight ratio and reliability up to the point
where long-distance flights became practical.  It's important to note that
the Atlantic was flown not once but THREE times in 1927:  Lindbergh,
Chamberlin and Levine, and Byrd's _America_.  "When it's time to railroad,
you railroad."

>>It didn't require gov't to fund these as long as something was known about
>>the potential for profit at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't
>>funded, some were private.
>Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

  Not off the top of my head; I'll have to dig out my reference books again.
However, I will say that the most common arrangement in Prince Henry the
Navigator's Portugal was for the prince to put up part of the money and
merchants to put up the rest.  They profits from the voyage would then be
shared.

>>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.
>A person who puts up $X billion for a moon base is much more likely to do
>it because they want to see it done than because they expect to make money
>off the deal.

  The problem is that the amount of prize money required to inspire a
Moon Base is much larger than any but a handful of individuals or corporations
can even consider putting up.  The Kremer Prizes (human powered aircraft),
Orteig's prize, Lord Northcliffe's prize for crossing the Atlantic (won in
1919 by Alcock and Brown) were MUCH smaller.  The technologies required were
within the reach of individual inventors, and the prize amounts were well
within the reach of a large number of wealthy individuals.  I think that only
a gov't could afford to set up a $1B+ prize for any purpose whatsoever.
  Note that Burt Rutan suggested that NASP could be built most cheaply by
taking out an ad in AvWeek stating that the first company to build a plane
that could take off and fly the profile would be handed $3B, no questions
asked.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61087
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <C5w5un.Bpq@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
> 
> The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for
> more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit.
> For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop
> a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper
> might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less
> ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)  

Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system.  Course, if a
low priced system existed, there might be demand...  

I wonder if there might be some way of structuring a contest to encourage
low cost payload delivery systems.  The accounting methods would probably
be the hardest to work out.  For example, would you allow Rockwell to
'loan' you the engines?  And so forth...

> Any plan for doing
> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
> money in a big way.
> 

This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system. 
You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
system comes on line.

I guess I'd simplify this to say that 'waste' is a slippery concept.  If
your goal is manned lunar exploration in the next 5 years, then perhaps its
not 'wasted' money.  If your goal is to explore the moon for under $500
million, then you should put of this exploration for a decade or so.

Craig


Craig Keithley           |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
Apple Computer, Inc.     |I got no memory of anything at all"
keithley@apple.com       |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61088
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

In article <1993Apr22.164801.7530@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.
>


I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity,
id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61089
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1r54to$oh@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
>one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
>handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?   

Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Its probably better to   
invest in newer launch systems. I don't think a big cost advantage
for using Russian systems will last for very long (maybe a few years). 
Lockheed would be the place to ask, since you would probably have to buy 
the Proton from them (they market the Proton world wide except Russia). 
They should know a lot about the possibilities, I haven't heard them
propose US launches, so I assume they looked into it and found it 
unprofitable. 

>Now if it uses storables,  

Yes...

>then  how long would it take for the russians
>to equip something at cape york?

Comparable to the Zenit I suppose, but since it looks like
nothing will be built there, you might just as well pick any
spot.

The message is: to launch now while its cheap and while Russia and
Kazakstan are still cooperating. Later, the story may be different.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61090
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5tvL2.1In@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:

>> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

>This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

>If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
>terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
>selling every bit that promises to make money? 

Well, I guess I'm left wondering just who all the 'light fascists'
think *they* are.  Yes, I understand the issues.  I don't even
particularly care for the idea.  But am I the only one that finds the
sort of overreaction above just a *little* questionable?  You must
find things like the Moon *really* obnoxious in their pollution.

A few questions for those frothing at the mouth to ask themselves:

	1) How long is this thing supposed to stay up?  Sounds like it
would have a *huge* drag area, not a lot of mass, and be in a fairly
low orbit.

	2) Just what orbital parameters are we talking about here?
What real impact are we talking about, really?  How many optical
astronomers are *really* going to be impacted?

	3) Which is more important; adding a few extra days of
'seeing' for (very few) optical astronomers or getting the data the
sensors are supposed to return along with the data for large
inflatables (and the potential there for an inflatable space station)?
The choice would seem to be one or the other, since the advertising is
being used to help fund this thing.

	4) If your answer to 3) above was "the astronomers", then feel
free to come up with some other way to fund the (to my mind) more
important research data that would be gained by this WITHOUT SPENDING
ANY MORE OF MY MONEY TO DO IT.  In other words, put up or shut up.

>I guess we really
>deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
>guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

Probably so.  I'm just not sure we agree about who the 'stupid' are. 

>	Another depressed planetary citizen,
>	hoover

Yeah, me too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61091
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!

If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?

It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
have the problems that we do.

[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61092
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In a message of <Apr 19 04:55>, jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

 >In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) 
 >writes:

MB>                                                             So the
MB> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.

JG>Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Couldn't we just say periapsis or apoapsis?

 

--- msged 2.07

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61093
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

> Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap in
> making statement without thinking them out. 
> 
> Wanna guess which today?
> 
> You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
> of a private Titan pad? 


Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old 
Titan ICBM.  If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need 
of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and 
pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices 
strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61094
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
(I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
moratorium on taxes.

Tom Freebairn 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61095
From: dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
[Lots of trippy stuff deleted]

Wow...  What is this guy smoking and WHERE can I GET SOME?

Dan
-- 
Daniel K. Appelquist|QUANTA is the electronically published and distributed
dan@visix.com       |magazine of science fiction  and  fantasy.   For  more
703-758-2712        |information, send  mail to  quanta+@andrew.cmu.edu or,
703-758-0233 (Fax)  |for back issues, ftp export.acs.cmu.edu, id:anonymous.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61096
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/22/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                           April 16 - 22, 1993


SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 19, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

2.  On April 19, a Command Detector Unit Signal-to-Noise Ratio (CDUSNR) test
and a Radio Frequency Subsystem Automatic Gain Control (RFSAGC) test were
performed using the LGA-1 (Low Gain Antenna #1) over DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter
antenna) and DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna), respectively.  Data analysis
is in process.  These tests are periodically performed to provide detailed
information relative to the telecom command hardware integrity.

3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

4.  On April 21, the first of two suppressed carrier/DSN (Deep Space Network)
advanced receiver characterization tests was performed over DSS-14 (Goldstone
70 meter antenna).  The spacecraft modulation index was varied from 43 degrees
to 90 degrees for a range of ground receiver bandwidth settings.

5.  The AC bus imbalance measurement has not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period but the DC bus imbalance
measurement has.  The AC measurement reads 20 DN (4.5 volts).  The DC
measurement has ranged from 43 DN (4.6 volts) to 138 DN (16.2 volts) and
currently reads 138 DN (16.2 volts).  These measurements are consistent with
the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

6.  The Spacecraft status as of April 22, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  68 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 21 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 5 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 184 hours


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 22, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         169,747,800 km (1.14 AU)
	Distance from Sun           286,967,900 km (1.92 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          91,200 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       532,735,900 km
	Round Trip Light Time       18 minutes, 58 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 22, 1993, a total of 70185 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65077  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5108 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, one real time command was transmitted: one was initiated in
the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command
process. The only command activity was a command to reset the command loss
timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61097
From: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>
>This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone
>know if he's involved?

No.  The idea was suggested around here during discussions of possible
near-term commercial space activities.  One of the folks involved in those
discussions, a
spacecraft engineer named Preston Carter, passed the suggestion on to 
some entreprenurial types, and Mike Lawson is apparently going ahead with
it.  Preston is now at LLNL, and is working with Space Marketing on 
the sensors that might be carried.
>
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. 

Actually, that sounds unlikely.  I don't know what the launch vehicle
would be, but I would expect it to go on a commercial launcher --
certainly not on the Shuttle -- and the fraction of the cost paid to NASA
for, e.g.,  launch support would probably 
cover NASA's incremental costs pretty well.

>>This
>>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
>
>This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
>guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
>build large, inflatable space structures.

No, as noted, LLNL is involved in lightweight sensor design, per 
Clementine and related programs.  I'm sure folks around here would like to 
see a demonstration of a modern inflatable structure, but after all, 
the U.S. did the Echo satellites long ago, and an advertising structure
would not be much closer to an inflatable space station than Echo was
(or a parade balloon, for that matter).
>
>>..........
>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

While I happen to personally dislike the idea, mostly because I've got
a background in astronomy, it's hardly vandalism -- it would be a short-lived
intrusion on the night sky, doing no permanent damage and actually hurting
only a small subset of astronomers.  On the other hand, it would certainly
draw attention to space.   
>
>If this is true, I think it's a great idea.
>
>Learning how to build structures in space in an essential
>step towards space development...

Which, unfortunately, this is not likely to contribute much to.

>If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates
>creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so
>much the better.
>
>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

As far as I know, it's a purely commercial venture.
>
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I gather it is being very seriously discussed with possible advertisers.
Commercial projects, however, generally don't get "funding" -- they
get "customers" -- whether it will have customers remains to be seen.
>
>>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
>
>Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return
>of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...

Nahh.  He's too busy watching for mutant bacteria to notice anything in
the sky :-)

>
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science

Jordin Kare	jtk@s1.gov	Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[These are my personal views only and do not represent official statements
or positions of LLNL, the University of California, or the U.S. DOE.]

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61098
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

Phil G. Fraering writes:

> Mark Brader writes:

>> Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>> me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>> has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>> Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>> Same person?

> No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
> is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

You may change that to 100% certainty.  But to clarify, Spacewatch is a
University of Arizona project using a telescope of the Steward Observatory
located on Kitt Peak.  It is not associated with Kitt Peak National
Observatory, other than sharing a mountain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61099
From: howard@sharps.astro.wisc.edu (Greg Howard)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


Actually, the "ether" stuff sounded a fair bit like a bizzare,
qualitative corruption of general relativity.  nothing to do with
the old-fashioned, ether, though.  maybe somebody could loan him
a GR text at a low level.

didn't get much further than that, tho.... whew.


greg

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61100
From: Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>Now, Space Marketing
>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>orbit.  NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.

How could this possibly be "environmental vandalism" when there is no
"environment" to vandalize up there?

Since the advertising "is just to help defray costs", it's certainly no
surprise that "the taxpayers would bear most of the expense".  Sounds
like a good idea to me, since the taxpayers would bear _all_ of the
expense if they didn't do the advertising.

>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky?

Great idea, they should have done it long ago.

>What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
as it goes zipping across the sky.

>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?

No doubt.  People are always looking for something to protest about, so
it would be no surprise.

>Really, really depressed.

Well, look on the, er, bright side.  Imagine the looks on the faces of
people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

--

Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61101
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:

>I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
>the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
>science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
>It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.

The company was probably "Public Missiles, Inc" of Michigan.

>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.

Yup.

>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
>Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.

Nope, it's not illegal. It is, however, closely regulated. In order to 
purchase and use the big rocket motors required, it is necessary to be
one of the following:
a) An employee of a government agency.
b) An employee or student at a university doing research involving rockets.
c) A member or representative of an educational organization involved in
research or other uses of rockets. There are two such organizations: 
The Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry.
Members of either organization must demonstrate proficiency in construction
and flight before they are allowed to purchase large motors on their own.

The FAA will issue a waiver of its regulations, upon request, to any 
organization which can persuade them it has taken adequate precautions 
to avoid conflicts with aircraft. The usual stipulations are:
- Only operation up to a specified ceiling is allowed. Depending on the
location, this ceiling may be from 5000 to 50000 feet AGL. 
- The operator of the rocket is responsible for avoiding any aircraft
within the operating radius around the launch site.
- Flight into clouds or beyond visual range in haze is expressly prohibited.
- The FAA will provide a NOTAM informing other users of the airspace that
unmanned rocket operations are taking place at the specified place and time.

Most of the launches that are held (and there are dozens of them every year)
are held in areas where air traffic is relatively light, such as over the
western deserts (the Black Rock Desert north of Reno is particularly popular
since it is 25 x 150 miles of *nothing to hit* on the ground).

The two rocketry associations test and approve motors for their members'
use, to insure safety. Depending on motor size, the launcher setback is
from 50 to 500 or more feet. 

By the way, rockets under 1 lb and powered by an "F" motor are exempt from
most Federal regulations on unmanned rockets anyway. See FAR 101, Subpart
C, for details.

As for recovery...although the higher altitude rockets can reach up to
50,000 feet, most of them only get to 2,000 to 5,000 feet. The typical
rocket is 2 to 6 inches in diameter, and carries a 3 to 6 foot parachute,
or multiple parachutes, depending on the payload. Many rockets also carry
either a small transmitter or an audio sounder--particularly at launches
in the eastern US, where there are more obstructions.

Camera, telemetry transmitter, and video payloads are becoming quite common.

>And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.

Why not? It's a lot of fun...check out the traffic on rec.models.rockets
for information about the model (3 lb and under) and high power (everything
bigger) rocket hobbies. As with all dangerous activities, the key is to
practice safety. I've been flying consumer rockets ranging up to 4-5 lbs
takeoff weight for 27 years, and still have all my extremities intact.

>-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas

That's another thing. NO EXPLOSIVE WARHEADS OF ANY KIND ARE ALLOWED ON THESE
ROCKETS. NONE! Please forgive me for shouting, but that's one of the biggest
misconceptions people have about our hobby. 

>/*            Just remember, you *WILL* die someday.             */
True. But it will not be related to the rocket hobby, unless I get 
hit while crossing a road with a rocket in my hand. 
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61102
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues writes:

> 	Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
> beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
> named the object Karla.

The name is a working name only; quite unofficial.  The formal designation
is 1993 FW.

> 	The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
> should be composed by rocks and ices.
> 
> 	Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
> new planet or a Kuiper object?

It's most likely a Kuiper Belt object, with an estimated diameter of
290 km.  The orbit hasn't been determined well enough yet to say much
more about it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61103
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r6rn3INNn96@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>of a private Titan pad? 

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
build something HLV-sized anyway.

Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
would have far better cost-effectiveness.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61104
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <keithley-220493104229@kip-37.apple.com> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
>Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
>contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
>there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
>demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system...

You're assuming that the low-cost delivery system has to be a separate
project.  But why?  If you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
in hopes of winning a billion-dollar prize, it is *cheaper* to develop
your own launch system, charging its entire development cost against
your contest entry, than to try to do it with existing launchers.  No
other demand is necessary.

>> Any plan for doing
>> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
>> money in a big way.
>
>This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
>words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
>navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system. 
>You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
>folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
>system comes on line.

You're assuming that it's going to take a decade to build a new launch
system.  But why?  The Saturn V took less than six years, depending on
exactly when you date its start.  Pegasus took about three from project
start to first flight.  Before SDIO chickened out on orbital development,
the target date for an orbital DC-Y flight was 1996.  If you really want
speed, consider that the first prototypes of the Thor missile (still in
service as the core of the Delta launcher) shipped to the USAF less
than 18 months after the development go-ahead.

One of the most pernicious myths in this whole business is the belief
that you can't build a launcher without taking ten years and spending
billions of dollars.  It isn't true and never was.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61105
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <3HgF3B3w165w@shakala.com> dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) writes:
>Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old 
>Titan ICBM...

Nope, you're confusing separate programs.  Atlas was the first-generation
US ICBM; Titan I was the second-generation one; Titan II, which all the
Titan launchers are based on, was the third-generation heavy ICBM.  There
was essentially nothing in common between these three programs.

(Yes, *three* programs.  Despite the similarity of names, Titan I and
Titan II were completely different missiles.  They didn't even use the
same fuels, never mind the same launch facilities.)

>If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need 
>of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and 
>pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices 
>strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

Sorry, the Titan silos (a) can't handle the Titan launchers with their
large SRBs, (b) can't handle *any* sort of launcher without massive
violations of normal range-safety rules (nobody cares about such things
in the event of a nuclear war, but in peacetime they matter), and (c) were
scrapped years ago.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61106
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
>of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
>to sunrise and sunset times.

Sorry, not so -- the changes in sunrise and sunset times are not
quite synchronized.  For example, neither the earliest sunrise nor the
latest sunset comes on the longest day of the year.

You can derive day length from sunrise and sunset times, but not
vice-versa.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61107
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

In article <1993Apr21.001555.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
   Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
   Why not??

Because to be any use as a nav point you need to know -exactly- where
it is, which means you either nail it to something that doesn't move
or you watch it all the time.  Neither of which is possible on a
deactivated spacecraft.  Then you have to know exactly how far away
from it you are; this may or may not be possible with the hardware on
board. 

Apart from which, there is absolutely no need for navigation beacons.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61108
From: wiml@stein2.u.washington.edu (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>Besides the mechanical problems of moving so dense a medium in oan out
>of the lungs (diaphragm fatigue, etc.), is there likely to be a problem
>with the mixture?  I mean, since the lungs never expel all the air in
>them, the inhaled air has to mix pretty quickly with the residual air in
>the lungs to provide a useful partial pressure of oxygen, right?  Would
>this mixing be substantially faster/slower at the pressures we're
>talking about?

  There was an interesting article in Scientific American some time ago
about breathing liquid. (It was a few months before _The Abyss_ came out.)
As far as I can remember, they mentioned three things that were difficult
to do at once with a substitute breathing fluid:
  - low viscosity --- if it's too difficult to force the fluid in & out 
    of the lungs, you can't extract enough oxygen to power your own
    breathing effort (let alone anything else)

  - diffusion rate --- obviously, not all the air in your lungs is
    expelled when you breathe out; and the part that isn't expelled
    is the part that's nearest the walls of the alveoli. (alveolus?)
    So the trip from the blood vessels to the new air has to be done
    by diffusion of the gas through the fluid. Apparently oxygen
    tends to diffuse more readily than CO2, so even if you can get enough
    oxygen in, you might not be able to get enough CO2 out.

  - oxygen/CO2 capacity --- you have to be able to dissolve enough
    gas per unit volume. 

  Oh, and of course, your new breathing fluid must not irritate the lungs
or interfere with their healing or anything like that... 

--
Wim Lewis, wiml@u.washington.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61109
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In <C5w5zJ.HHq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Greg Hennessy writes:
>In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>#The better question  should be.
>#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
>#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.
>
>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
>changing them to a seperate agency help anything?
>
How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
able to accept donations to keep craft operational.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61110
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
> such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
> granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
> rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
> moratorium on taxes.
> 
> Tom Freebairn 


Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US
Government? 
Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?

If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you? 

Why can't a small company or corp or organization go an explore the great
beyond of space? what right does earth have to say what is legal and what is
not.. Maybe I am a few years ahead on this.. It is liek the old Catholic Church 
stating which was Portugals and what was Spains, and along came the Reformation
and made it all null and void.. 

What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your
services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what
ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..
Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason
or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or
whatever..
There are nations in the World who are not part of the UN, got to them and
offer your services and such.. I know that sound crazy, but. is it..
Also once you have the means to mine the moon (or whatever) then just do it.
The UN if done right can be made to be so busy with something else, they will
not care.. 
If your worried about the US, do the same thing..

Why be limited by the short sighted people of earth.. After all they have many
other things to worry about that if someone is mining the Moon or MArs or what
ever..
Basically what I am saying is where is that drive of yeasteryears to go a
little bit farther out, to do jus ta  little bit more, and to tell the crown to
piss off.. If my ancestors thought the way many today think, Id have been born
in Central Europe just north of the Black Sea..

I just read a good book, "Tower of the Gods" Interesting..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61111
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
> 
> they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like
> the moon when theyare done.
> 
> pat
===
I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).

I am talking the guy who coem to Nome evry year, sets up his tent on the beach
(the beach was washed away last year) and sets up his/her sluice box and goes
at it "mining".
I know the large corps, such as Alaska Gold Company, might complain to..

My opinions are what I learn at the local BS table..

My original thing/idea was that the way to get space mining was to allow the
eco-freaks thier way.. As they have done with other mineral development.
You can't in many places can't go to the bathroom in the woods without some
form of regulation covering it.. 

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61112
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Billboard/Station/Space Dock?

Seems that the Mile-Long Billboard and any other inflateble space
object/station or what ever have the same problems. (other than being a little
bit different than the "normal" space ideas, such as trusses and shuttles)

But also dag and such.. Why not combine the discussion of how and fesibility to
the same topic?

I personnelly liek the idea of a billboard in space. But problem. How do you
service it? fly a shuttle/DC-1 to near it and then dismount and "fly" to it?
Or what?? or havign a special docking section for shuttle/DC-1 docking?

Also what if the billboard springs a leak? Self sealing and such??


Just thinking (okay rambling)..

Also why must the now inflated billboard, not be covered in the inside by a
harder substance (such as a polymer or other agent) and then the now "hard"
billboard would be a now giant docking structure/space dock/station??

Or am I missing something here.. (probably am!?)
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61113
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

Are breathable liquids possible?

I remember seeing an old Nova or The Nature of Things where this idea was
touched upon (it might have been some other TV show).  If nothing else, I know
such liquids ARE possible because...

They showed a large glass full of this liquid, and put a white mouse (rat?) in
it.  Since the liquid was not dense, the mouse would float, so it was held down
by tongs clutching its tail.  The thing struggled quite a bit, but it was
certainly held down long enough so that it was breathing the liquid.  It never
did slow down in its frantic attempts to swim to the top.

Now, this may not have been the most humane of demonstrations, but it certainly
shows breathable liquids can be made.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61114
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

<1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and
>Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
>and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
>that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
>dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 

Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh?

The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most
pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous
offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.

You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by
failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here)
which would give your imagination wings.

Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of 
the Body Snatchers_:

"Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61115
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

I posted this over in sci.astro, but it didn't make it here.
Thought you all would like my wonderful pithy commentary :-)

What? You guys have never seen the Goodyear blimp polluting
the daytime and nightime skies?

Actually an oribital sign would only be visible near
sunset and sunrise, I believe.  So pollution at night
would be minimal.

If it pays for space travel, go for it.  Those who don't
like spatial billboards can then head for the pristine
environment of Jupiter's moons :-)

---
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61116
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
> 
> Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
> please try to remember that there are more human activities than
> those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
> Priesthood.

Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may 
 freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61117
From: agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

Thanks, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Belle Vue Court    |"They're unfriendly, which    | Home: 0684 564438
32 Belle Vue Terrace | is fortunate, really. They'd | Away: 0628 784351
Great Malvern        | be difficult to like."       | Work: 0628 794137
Worcestershire       |                              |
WR14 4PZ             | Kerr Avon, Blake's Seven     | Temporary: agc@bnr.ca
England              |                              | Permanent: alan@gid.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61118
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr23.000021.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>> [...]  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
>> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
>> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
>> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
>> moratorium on taxes.
>> 
>> Tom Freebairn 
>
>
>Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US
>Government? 

Tom's right about this.  It's only a grantable right if the granter has
the will and the ability to stop anyone from taking it away from you.
Never mind the legal status.

>Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
>The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?

Nick's right about this.  It's always easier to obtain forgiveness than
permission.  Not many people remember that Britain's King George III
expressly forbid his american subjects to cross the alleghany/appalachian
mountains.  Said subjects basically said, "Stop us if you can."  He
couldn't.

>If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
>stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you? 

That's how the USA started.  Of course, that's also how the Bolivarian
Republic started (ca. 1800-1820) in central america.  It didn't have
quite the staying power of the USA.  I'm sure there are more examples of
going far away and then ignoring authority, but none jump to mind right
now.

>What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your
>services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what
>ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..

Or do as some whaling nations do: define whatever activities you want to
carry out as "scientific research" which just coincidentally requires
the recovery of megatonnes of minerals (or whatever), then go at it.

>Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason
>or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or
>whatever..

Lute Keyser had just this sort of arrangement with Libya (I think) in
the late '70's for his commercial space launch project (one of the very
earliest).  It was killed by Soviet propaganda about NATO cruise
missiles in Africa, which made Libya renege on the arrangement.


Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61119
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In my last post I referred to Michael Adams as "Nick."  Completely my
error; Nick Adams was a film and TV actor from the '50's and early '60's
(remember Johnny Yuma, The Rebel?).  He was from my part of the country,
and Michael's email address of "nmsca[...]" probably helped confuse things
in my mind.  Purely user headspace error on my part.  Sorry.

Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61120
From: ven@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Van E. Neie)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr22.180630.18313@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> pearson@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (N. Shirlene Pearson) writes:
>jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>
>>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Would you mind posting the responses you get?
>I am also interested, and there may be others.
>
>Thanks,
>
>N. Shirlene Pearson
>pearson@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu

There is an excellent software program called Astro.calc that does that and
much more.  The latest address I have is

	MMI Corporation
	PO Box 19907
	Baltimore, MD  21211
	Phone (301) 366-1222


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van E. Neie                                      ven@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu
Purdue University                                neie@purccvm.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61121
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Space Station Redesign Chief Resigns for Health Reasons

Writer Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post that Joseph Shea, the 
head of the space station redesign has resigned for health reasons.

Shea was hospitalized shortly after his selection in February.  He returned
yesterday to lead the formal presentation to the independent White House panel.
Shea's presentation was rambling and almost inaudible.

Shea's deputy, former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, will take over the effort.

Goldin asserted that the redesign effort is on track.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61122
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Clementine mission name

> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
> Old pioneer song from the 1850's or so goes as follows:
>
>   "In a cavern, in a canyon,
>    Excavating for a mine,
>    Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
>    And his daughter, CLEMENTINE"
>
> Chorus:
>   "Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
>    Oh my darling Clementine.
>    You are lost and gone forever,
>    Oh my darling Clementine."


        Let us hope that the performance of the spacecraft follows the
sentiments of the first verse (miner) rather than the second (lost and gone
forever).

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61123
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?)

In article <C5xp0K.G79@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
> <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>> Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
>>and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
>>that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
>>dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 
> 
> Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh?
> 
> The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most
> pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous
> offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.

Well said.
 
> You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by
> failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here)
> which would give your imagination wings.
> 
> Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of 
> the Body Snatchers_:
> 
> "Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"

Okay, Del, so Michael was being unfair, but you are being unfair back.  
He is taking college courses now, I presume he is studying hard, and
his postings reveal that he is *somewhat* hip to the technical issues
of astronautics.  Plus, he is attentively following the erudite
discourse of the Big Brains who post to sci.space; is it not
inevitable that he will get a splendid technical education from
reading the likes of you and me? [1]

Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a
fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up
fast.  I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a
technical education to follow them up.  Too bad I wound up in an
assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day...
(-:

[1] Though rumors persist that Del and I are both pseudonyms of Fred
McCall.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June. 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | You bring your view-graphs, 
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and I'll bring my rocketship."  
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61124
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca>, agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes...
>In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.
> 
>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?
> 

The Command Loss Timer is part of the fault protection scheme of the
spacecraft.  If the Command Loss Timer ever countdowns to zero, then the
spacecraft assumes it has lost communications with Earth and will go 
through a set of predetermined steps to try to regain contact.  The
Command Loss Timer is set to 264 hours and reset about once a week during 
the cruise phase, and is set to a lower value during an encounter phase.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61125
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
>exploration.
>
>Basically get the eco-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth.

They aren't going to leave a loophole as glaring as space mining.  Quite a
few of those people are, when you come right down to it, basically against
industrial civilization.  They won't stop with shutting down the mines here;
that is only a means to an end for them now.

The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his revolution
is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without radical change.
Telling people that paradise can be attained without the revolution is
treason of the vilest kind.

Trying to harness these people to support spaceflight is like trying to
harness a buffalo to pull your plough.  He's got plenty of muscle, all
right, but the furrow will go where he wants, not where you want.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61126
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <19930423.010821.639@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
>>changing them to a seperate agency help anything?
>>
>How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
>able to accept donations to keep craft operational.

The problem is, you can't raise adequate amounts of money that way.
The Viking Fund tried.  They did succeed, in a way, but only because
of the political impact of their fundraising.  The actual amount of
money they raised was fairly inconsequential; it would not have kept
the Viking lander going by itself.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61127
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:
>|> ... a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer ...
>
>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

If I'm not mistaken, this is the usual sort of precaution against loss of
communications.  That timer is counting down continuously; if it ever hits
zero, that means Galileo hasn't heard from Earth in a suspiciously long
time and it may be Galileo's fault... so it's time to go into a fallback
mode that minimizes chances of spacecraft damage and maximizes chances
of restoring contact.  I don't know exactly what-all Galileo does in such
a situation, but a common example is to switch receivers, on the theory
that maybe the one you're listening with has died.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61128
From: jbreed@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

In article <C5ros0.uy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.

Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
our view of them either.  What am I missing?

	Jim

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61129
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion...)

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu, University of Alaska Fairbanks writes:

[A GOOD DEAL OF HEALTHY IF NOT DEEPLY THOUGHT OUT IDEALISM DELETED
BELOW.]

>Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
>[...] Can the truly inforce it? [...] 

If their parent company does business (and they will) on the face of the Earth
then they are vulnerable to govt. sanctions.  Yes they can be stopped.

>If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
>stop you from doing it. [...]   

For the first 100 - 500 (IMHO) years nobody will have to.  The colonists will
be too dependent on Earth too pull it off.  Eventually they will, history
shows us that.

>Also once you have the means to mine the moon (or whatever) then just do it. 
>The UN if done right can be made to be so busy with something else, they will
>not care [...]

What exactly do you mean here?  Terrorism?  Start an international incident
so your dream can come true?  Crack a few eggs to make the omelet?  This
sounds fairly irresponsible.


>Basically what I am saying is where is that drive of yeasteryears to go a
>little bit farther out, to do jus ta  little bit more, and to tell the crown to
>piss off.. If my ancestors thought the way many today think, Id have been born
>in Central Europe just north of the Black Sea..        

Again, the tie that binds will be much stronger for space colonists than
any immigrants that have gone before.  Even those intrepid Asian
explorers that crossed the Bering land bridge did not have to carry their
air on their backs.

==    
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked  

Keep the dream alive, maybe dream it a little more cogently.

Tom Freebairn   | There once was a man
		| Who built a boat
		| To sail away in.
		| It sank.
		|        J.P. Donleavy
			 _Fairy Tale of New York_ (maybe?)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61130
From: nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson)
Subject: COMET...when did/will she launch?

COMET (Commercial Experiment Transport) is to launch from Wallops Island
Virginia and orbit Earth for about 30 days. It is scheduled to come down
in the Utah Test & Training Range, west of Salt Lake City, Utah. I saw
a message in this group toward the end of March that it was to launch 
on March 27. Does anyone know if it launched on that day, or if not, 
when it is scheduled to launch and/or when it will come down.

I would also be interested in what kind(s) of payload(s) are onboard.

Thanks for your help.

Norman Anderson          nanderso@endor.sim.es.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61131
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)



INteresting question about Galileo.

Galileo's HGA  is stuck.   

The HGA was left closed,  because galileo  had a venus flyby.

If the HGA were pointed att he sun,  near venus,  it would
cook the foci elements.

question:  WHy couldn't Galileo's  course manuevers have been
designed such that the HGA  did not ever do a sun point.?

After all,  it would normally be aimed at earth anyway?

or would it be that an emergency situation i.e. spacecraft safing
and seek might have caused an HGA sun point?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61132
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Ed Campion
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                             April 23, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1780)

Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone:  713/483-5111)

RELEASE:  93-76

HUBBLE TELESCOPE SERVICING MISSION SCHEDULED FOR ELEVEN DAYS

	The December flight of Endeavour on Space Shuttle mission STS-61 to
service the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been scheduled as an 11 day
mission designed to accommodate a record five spacewalks with the capability
for an additional two, if needed.

	The decision to schedule five extravehicular activities, or EVAs, was
reached following extensive evaluations of underwater training, maneuver times
required using the Shuttle's robot arm based on software simulations and actual
EVA tasks on previous missions.

	"Basically what we've done by going to five EVAs rather than three is
to repackage our margin so that we have the capability to respond to the
dynamics, or unknowns, of spacewalks," Mission Director Randy Brinkley said.
"It improves the probabilities for mission success while providing added
flexibility and adaptability for reacting to real-time situations."

	In laying out the specific tasks to be completed on each of the
spacewalks, officials have determined that changing out the gyros, solar arrays
and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera (WF/PC) and installing the Corrective
Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR) are priority objectives
during the mission.

	"When we looked at accomplishing all of the tasks, highest through
lowest priority, and recognizing that the major tasks -- gyros, solar arrays,
WF/PC and COSTAR -- would consume most of the time set aside for each
spacewalk, five EVAs were deemed appropriate," said Milt Heflin, Lead Flight
Director for the mission.

	While the five spacewalks will be unprecedented, the use of two
alternating spacewalk teams will alleviate placing more stress on the crew than
previous missions requiring two, three or four EVAs.

	"We have paid close attention to lessons learned during previous
spacewalks and factored these into our timeline estimates for five EVAs,"
Heflin said.  "In planning for all Space Shuttle missions, it is necessary to
formulate a work schedule that represents as realistic a timeline as possible
to accomplish the mission objectives."

	Planning currently calls for at least five water tank training sessions
that include support from the Mission Control Center, called joint integrated
simulations, lasting between 10 and 36 hours.  In addition, many stand alone
underwater training "runs" will practice individual tasks in each spacewalk.

	Various refinements to the specific tasks on each spacewalk will be
made based on actual training experience during the months prior to the
mission.  Also, lessons learned from other spacewalks leading up to the flight
will be valuable in assisting the STS-61 crew in its training techniques.

	Endeavour's June flight and Discovery's July mission both will include
spacewalks to evaluate some of the unique tools to be used on the HST mission.
The evaluations will help in better understanding the differences between the
actual weightlessness of space and the ground training in the water tanks at
the Johnson Space Center, Houston, and the Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Ala.

	Also, the inflight spacewalking experiences will assist in gaining
further insight into the time required for the various tasks and expand the
experience levels among the astronaut corps, the flight controllers and
trainers.

	Designed to be serviced by a Space Shuttle crew, Hubble was built with
grapple fixtures and handholds to assist in the capture and repair procedures.

	The telescope was launched aboard Discovery in April 1990.  At that
time the NASA mixed fleet manifest showed the first revisit mission to HST in
1993 to change out science instruments and make any repairs that may have
become necessary.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61133
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?


Henry,

didn't the Little Joe  and Big Joe  get built in under a year?
6 months for little Joe,  and 12 Months for Big Joe?

i thought i saw something on that for  a old mercury film.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61134
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
>> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
>===
>I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
>miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
>people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
>mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).


Lot's of these small miners  are no longer miners.  THey are people living
rent free on Federal land,  under the claim of being a miner.  The facts are
many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining,  do not
often even live their full time,  and do fotentimes do a fair bit
of environmental damage.

These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's  when the west was
uninhabited  and were designed to bring people into the frontier.  Times change
people change.  DEAL.  you don't have a constitutional right to live off
the same industry forever.  Anyone who claims the have a right to their
job in particular,  is spouting nonsense.   THis has been a long term
federal welfare program,  that has outlived it's usefulness.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61135
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]


Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
in Somalia!)

To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)

-- 
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet! 



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61136
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

In <1r6ub0$mgl@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr22.164801.7530@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.
>>


>I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity,
>id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.

Careful.  Making statements about how solid state is (generally) more
reliable than analog will get you a nasty follow-up from Tommy Mac or
Pat.  Wait a minute; you *are* Pat.  Pleased to see that you're not
suffering from the bugaboos of a small mind.  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61137
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:

>In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

The Command Loss Timer is a timer that does just what its name says;
it indicates to the probe that it has lost its data link for receiving
commands.  Upon expiration of the Command Loss Timer, I believe the
probe starts a 'search for Earth' sequence (involving antenna pointing
and attitude changes which consume fuel) to try to reestablish
communications.  No-ops are sent periodically through those periods
when there are no real commands to be sent, just so the probe knows
that we haven't forgotten about it.

Hope that's clear enough to be comprehensible. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61138
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
one  should be called 'Smiley'.

							James Nicoll


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61139
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>>Now, Space Marketing

>>What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>>it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

>I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
>effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
>but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only

When I was at the Texas Star Party a few years ago, the sky was so dark
that Venus did, indeed, cause light pollution until it set.

Even if the billboard were dark it could cause a problem.  Imagine observing an
object and halfway through your run, your object was occulted!

I would guess that most of the people stating positive opinions are not 
fanatically serious observers.

It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
 
George Krumins
-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  George Krumins                                                              |
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61140
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: SIRTF Mission is Still Alive

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

SIRTF is still very much in business

By Mark Whalen
     In these times of extra-tight NASA budgets, the very
survival of a number of missions has been uncertain. But thanks
to major design refinements implemented in recent months, JPL's
Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) -- a major project
considered to be in trouble a couple of years ago -- is "alive
and well," according to Project Scientist Michael Werner.
     A lighter spacecraft, revised orbit and shorter mission have
added up to a less expensive project with "tremendous scientific
power" and a bright future, said Werner.
     Designed as a follow-up to the highly successful Infrared
Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) and Cosmic Background Explorer
(COBE) missions, SIRTF -- a cryogenically cooled observatory for
infrared astronomy from space -- is scheduled for launch in 2000
or 2001 if plans proceed as scheduled.
     IRAS' pioneering work in space-based infrared astronomy 10
years ago allowed astronomers to view the Milky Way as never
before and revealed, among other things, 60,000 galaxies and 25
comets. It provided a sky survey 1,000 times more sensitive than
any previously available from ground-based observations. COBE has
measured the infrared and microwave background radiation on large
angular scales, and revealed new facts about the early universe.
     But to illuminate SIRTF's potential, Jim Evans, JPL's
manager of Astrophysics and Fundamental Physics Pre-Projects,
recently said that the project is "1,000 to 1 million times more
capable than IRAS," based on technological advances in infrared
detector arrays.
     However, despite the enormous strides in infrared
exploration SIRTF promised, and the fact that it was cited as the
highest priority new initiative for all of astronomy in the 1990s
(by the National Academy of Sciences), it took a "diet or die"
directive from NASA Headquarters last year to keep the project
going, according to Werner.
     The project is now known as Atlas SIRTF, based on the key
factor in its new design: The satellite will orbit the sun
instead of the Earth, permitting the use of an Atlas rocket
launch instead of the formerly proposed and heavier Titan. "The
main advantage of the solar orbit is that you can use all of your
launch capability for boosting the payload -- you don't have to
carry up a second rocket to circularize the orbit," Werner said.
The other advantage to a solar orbit, he said, is that "it's in a
better thermal environment, away from the heat of the Earth."
     Additional major changes in SIRTF's redesign include
shortening the mission from five to three years and building a
spacecraft that is less than half as heavy as in the original
plan -- Atlas SIRTF will weigh 2,470 kilograms (5,400 pounds)
compared to Titan SIRTF's 5,500 kilograms (12,100 pounds).
     All of that adds up to "a less stressful launch
environment," Werner said, and a cost savings of more than $200
million for the launch, in addition to increased savings in the
design of the smaller, less massive spacecraft.
     Werner said SIRTF's redesign came as a result of Congress'
telling NASA "you're trying to do too many things. If you want us
to support SIRTF, which is a good project, develop a plan to see
how it fits into (NASA's) overall strategy."
     Shortly thereafter, SIRTF was named as NASA's highest
priority "flagship" scientific mission by the interdisciplinary
Space Sciences Advisory Committee, in addition to the blessing
from the National Academy of Sciences.
     While the spacecraft and its instruments required descoping
to keep the project alive, SIRTF's major scientific contribution
always promised to come about from its advanced infrared detector
arrays, which will allow images to be developed "tens of
thousands of times faster" than before, according to Evans.
     "Up until a couple of years ago," Werner said, "all infrared
astronomy was done with single detectors -- or very small arrays
of individually assembled detectors. Since then, the Department
of Defense has developed a program to produce arrays of tens or
hundreds of thousands of detectors, rather than just a few, and
those are very well suited for use on SIRTF."
     Werner noted that in addition to dealing with budget
pressures, Congress is currently watching NASA projects with an
eye out for any "technological spinoff."
     "On that question, I think we have some things to say," he
said, "because the detectors we're using are straight off various
military developments. Also, SIRTF will be built by the U.S.
aerospace industry, and it's a real technological and engineering
challenge in addition to being a tremendous scientific project.
     "SIRTF will be used by the entire astronomical community,"
Werner added, but the revised three-year mission "puts a premium
on observing time. We have to educate the user community and
develop a program that involves early surveys and quick
turnaround of the data."
     Werner said the downsizing of the project required a
reduction in scope and complexity of SIRTF's three instruments --
the infrared spectrograph, infrared array camera and multiband
imaging photometer. However, these reductions will only result in
losses of efficiency rather than capability, he said.
     The project hopes to start a "Phase B" activity in 1995,
which will provide a detailed concept for development and design.
Building the hardware would begin about two years later.
     Projected cost estimates, Evans said, are $850 million-$950
million.
     "I am very optimistic about SIRTF," he said. "It will
provide a tremendous return for the investment."
     Werner added that an additional benefit from the project
will be the "enrichment of our intellectual and cultural
environment. People on the street are very interested in
astronomy ... black holes, the possibility of life on other
planets, the origin of the universe ... and those are the kind of
questions SIRTF will help answer."
                              ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61141
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking tours Lab

By Karre Marino
     Some 15 years after his first visit to JPL, Prof. Stephen
Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge
University and author of "A Brief History of Time," returned to
the Lab April 5.
     On a tour hosted by JPL Chief Scientist Dr. Moustafa Chahine
and Merle McKenzie, manager of the International Affairs Office,
Hawking visited a variety of facilities, met with Lab Director
Dr. Edward Stone and various project scientists and managers, and
felt "like royalty," he said. Hawking, whose theories attempt to
explain the origin of distant galaxies, black holes and alternate
dimensions, wanted to re-visit JPL, he explained, "because while
I'm most interested in those things in space that are farther
away, I know that here is where the first steps are taken."
     Hawking, who was accompanied by his family, two graduate
students and his aides, began the tour in von Karman Auditorium,
as David Evans, deputy assistant Lab director in the Office of
Flight Projects, and Dr. Arden Albee, Mars Observer's project
scientist, briefed him on current and past flight projects.
     Voyager was pointed out to him, with special attention paid
to a gold plate with a series of engraved images. Should
extraterrestrial life stumble upon the spacecraft, Evans noted,
they would find a variety of images that would explain something
of Earth. The professor asked if we were still communicating with
the spacecraft, and Evans affirmed that we are.
     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes
describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer
to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five
years before, described the professor as "a living miracle of the
power of the brain. He's miraculous, and he has such a good sense
of humor."
     The next stop, a demonstration on scientific data
visualization in Section 384's Digital Image Animation Lab,
entertained and delighted the group, as everyone donned goggles
to view 3-D images of Mars. Project Scientist Dr. Eric De Jong
showed off the latest data -- a comet that had only recently been
discovered in orbit close to Jupiter. Hawking was curious about
its composition, and as he was shown how images are developed, he
asked several questions on their interpretation.
     Norman Haynes, ALD, Office of Telecommunications and Data
Acquisition, briefed the professor on the Space Flight Operations
Facility, and then Hawking spoke with Stone.
     The day ended with two technical discussions of particular
interest to the professor. Technical Group Leader Dr. Frank
Estabrook and Senior Research Scientist Hugo Wahlquist described
a three-spacecraft gravity wave experiment, currently under way.
Then planetary astronomer Dr. Richard Terrile explained the
philosophy and plans for extra solar system planetary detection.
     The Hawking party, which had been visiting Southern
California for five weeks, was headquartered at Caltech, and
planned to leave for England within a few weeks after the Lab
tour. Upon departing, the Cambridge-based scientist promised
Chahine that he would return to JPL for another visit.
                          ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61142
From: simon@cyklop.nada.kth.se (Simon Tardell)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:

>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

>I would appreciate any advice.

I once thought it would be easiest fitting a sine to the times. But not.
This gave  discrepancy of upto six minutes. If you fit a sine series
you'll get a very good fit after just three or four terms though. This
presumably has to do with the eccentricity of the Earths orbit.

-- 
Simon Tardell, Ff88, simon@nada.kth.se              V}ga v{gra cgs!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61143
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: JPL's VLBI Project Meets with International Space Agencies

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

VLBI project meets with international space agencies

By Ed McNevin
     Members of JPL's Space Very Long Baseline Interferometry
(VLBI) project team recently concluded a week-long series of
meetings with officials from Russia and Japan.
     The meetings were part of "Space VLBI Week" held at JPL in
early March and were intended to maintain cooperation between
international space agencies participating in the development of
the U.S. Space VLBI Project, a recently approved JPL flight
project set for launch in 1995.
     U.S. Space VLBI will utilize two Earth-orbiting spacecraft
-- the Japanese VSOP (VLBI Space Observing Program) satellite
with its 8-meter radio telescope, and a Russian RADIOASTRON
10-meter satellite. Both spacecraft will team up with
ground-based radio telescopes located around the world to create
a radio telescope network that astronomers hope will expand radio
telescope observing power by a factor of 10.
     Japan's VSOP satellite will use a limited six-hour orbit to
conduct imaging science, while the Russian RADIOASTRON spacecraft
will exploit a larger, 28-hour Earth orbit to conduct exploratory
radio astronomy. Each satellite will point at a source target for
roughly 24 hours, while approximately 20 ground-based radio
telescopes will simultaneously point at the same source object
while within view on Earth.
     According to Dr. Joel Smith, JPL's project manager for the
U.S. Space VLBI, meetings like those held at JPL will permit
Japan and Russia, who have little previous experience in radio
interferometry, to establish working relationships with the radio
astronomy communities that will be vital during the complex
observations required by the Space VLBI project.
     "One of our main activities is developing the methodology
for international coordination, because the two spacecraft
simultaneously rely on the corresponding tracking stations while
using the ground-based radio telescopes to observe the same
celestial objects," said Smith.
     Three new tracking antennas are being built at DSN
facilities and other three other tracking facilities located in
Japan, Russia and Green Bank, W.Va. This global network of
ground-based radio telescopes will use precision clocks and
high-speed recorders to collect observation data and forward the
information to a correlator located at the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, N.M. The correlator will
combine and process data, then make it available to mission
investigators in Moscow, Tokyo, and JPL via electronic mail.
     Smith is optimistic that the massive radio telescope created
by the Space VLBI network will provide radio astronomers with
better resolution than has ever been achieved before by
ground-based radio telescopes, allowing astronomers to take a
closer look at distant objects in space.
     "There is a long history of radio astronomy using
ground-based telescopes," said Smith. "What we intend to do is to
extend radio astronomy into Earth orbit. Our goal is to look
deeper into the cores of galactic nuclei, quasars and other
active radio sources to understand what drives those things we
have seen so far with radio astronomy."
     Smith noted that if one examines "the active galactic
nuclei, you'll find jets appearing to spew at speeds greater than
light, and at energy levels that are millions of times greater
than you would expect."
     He said some astronomers believe that black holes may be
located in the cores of these galaxies, and that they may fuel
the jets. Smith hopes that "by using Space VLBI to look further
into the cores, this theory may be supported or disproved."
     Russian space-flight hardware, including transponders and
transmitters, are now being tested in the United States, and
Japanese hardware is scheduled to arrive for testing later this
year. Analysis of this hardware will permit U.S. scientists and
engineers to understand how to modify the high-speed VLBA
Correlator operating at the NRAO in order to accommodate the odd
data patterns that will originate from the more than 20
ground-based radio telescopes involved in Space VLBI.
     Smith is particularly pleased that meetings with the
Japanese and Russian space agency officials -- like those held at
JPL in March -- have proceeded smoothly. Yet he knows that the
political uncertainty in Russia could jeopardize that country's
participation in the project.
     "Nothing is ever smooth," he said, "but the Russians have
been incredibly open with us. We always anticipated some
likelihood that we will not succeed because of political factors
beyond our control, yet there tends to be a way of keeping these
things going, because scientists on both sides are trying hard,
and people recognize the value of cooperation at this level."
     Smith points out that the Japanese space agency has more at
stake than just fulfilling an international commitment to a
science mission.
     "The Japanese have been extremely cooperative, since
international cooperation is essential to their science mission,"
he said.
     But Smith also noted that Japanese space agency officials
look at the U.S. Space VLBI mission as an opportunity to showcase
the technology involved with VSOP spacecraft, and their highly
regarded Mach V launch vehicle.
     Yet regardless of the risks involved in undertaking such an
ambitious project, JPL's Smith is satisfied that planning for the
Space VLBI Project is beyond the significant financial and
political hurdles that otherwise might threaten the project.
     "Fortunately, we have the virtue of having two partners, and
if either falls out, we would still have something with the
other. By themselves, both spacecraft are independent,
scientifically exciting missions."
                           ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61144
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:06:09 BST, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) said:
GS> How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
GS> able to accept donations to keep craft operational.

I seem to remember NASA considering this for some of the Apollo
equipment left on the moon, but that they decided against it.

Or maybe not...


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<, 
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61145
From: wawers@lif.de (Theo Wawers)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times


There is a nice little tool in Lucid emacs. It's called "calendar".
On request it shows for given longitude/latitude coordinates times for
sunset and sunrise. The code is written in lisp.
I don't know if you like the idea that an editor is the right program to
calculate these things.


Theo W.

Theo Wawers                                  LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBH
email : wawers@sunny.lif.de                  Lyonerstr. 22
phone : +49 69 66 77 639                     D-6000 Frankfurt/Main
fax   : +49 69 66 77 571                     Germany


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61146
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61147
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Joe Wetstein

There is a wonderful book by Jean Meeus called
"Astronomical Algorithms," (1991) which I am fairly sure
contains an algorithm for sunrise and sunset times.


Dan Asimov
Mail Stop T045-1
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

asimov@nas.nasa.gov
(415) 604-4799

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61148
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes:
> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.

Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra
Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."

I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme
care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in
the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not
surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

Of course, what Shakespeare        | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
ORIGINALLY wrote was "First thing  | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  
we do, let's kill all the EDITORS."| Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  
But for some reason it didn't      | Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  
survive past the first draft.      | SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  
-- David D. "Laserdave" Levine (davidl@ssd.intel.com)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61149
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
Crystal City.  Mr. Mark Holderman works down the hall from me, and can
be reached for comment at (713) 483-1317, or via e-mail at
mholderm@jscprofs.nasa.gov.

Mark proposed this design, which he calls "Geode" ("rough on the
outside, but a gem on the inside") or the "ET Strongback with
integrated hab modules and centrifuge."  As you can see from file
geodeA.gif, it uses a Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) in place of much
of the truss which is currently part of Space Station Freedom.  The
white track on the outside of the ET is used by the Station Remonte
Manipulator System (SRMS) and by the Reaction Control System (RCS)
pod.  This allows the RCS pod to move along the track so that thrusting
can occur near the center of gravity (CG) of the Station as the mass
properties of the Station change during assembly.

The inline module design allows the Shuttle to dock more easily because
it can approach closer to the Station's CG and at a structurally strong
part of the Station.  In the current SSF design, docking forces are
limited to 400 pounds, which seriously constrains the design of the
docking system.

The ET would have a hatch installed pre-flight, with little additional
launch mass.  We've always had the ability to put an ET into orbit
(contrary to some rumors which have circulated here), but we've never
had a reason to do it, while we have had some good reasons not to
(performance penalties, control, debris generation, and eventual
de-orbit and impact footprint).  Once on-orbit, we would vent the
residual H2.  The ET insulation (SOFI) either a) erodes on-orbit from
impact with atomic Oxygen, or b) stays where it is, and we deploy a
Kevlar sheath around it to protect it and keep it from contaminating
the local space environment.  Option b) has the advantage of providing
further micrometeor protection.  The ET is incredibly strong (remember,
it supports the whole stack during launch), and could serve as the
nucleus for a much more ambitious design as budget permits.

The white module at the end of ET contains a set of Control Moment
Gyros to be used for attitude control, while the RCS will be used
for gyro desaturation.  The module also contains a de-orbit system
which can be used at the end of the Station's life to perform a
controlled de-orbit (so we don't kill any more kangaroos, like we
did with Skylab).

The centrifuge, which has the same volume as a hab module, could be
used for long-term studies of the effects of lunar or martian gravity
on humans.  The centrifuge will be used as a momentum storage device
for the whole attitude control system.  The centrifuge is mounted on
one of the modules, opposite the ET and the solar panels.

This design uses most of the existing SSF designs for electrical,
data and communication systems, getting leverage from the SSF work
done to date.

Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City,
and he reports that he was warmly received.  However, the rumors
I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter
seems more likely.

Please note that this text is my interpretation of Mark's design;
you should see his notes in the GIF files.  

Instead of posting a 2 MB file to sci.space, I tried to post these for
anon-FTP in ames.arc.nasa.gov, but it was out of storage space.  I'll
let you all know when I get that done.

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

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as 
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61150
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>one  should be called 'Smiley'.

Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

-- 
Jeff Foust              [49 days!]	"You're from outer space."
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech	"No, I'm from Iowa.  I only work in
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu			 outer space."
jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov			-- from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61151
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Russian Email Contacts.

I am coordinating the Space Shuttle Program Office's e-mail traffic to
NPO Energia for our on-going Joint Missions.  I have several e-mail
addresses for NPO Energia folks, but I won't post them on the 'Net for
obvious reasons.  If you need to know, give me a yell.

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

     "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
     the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61152
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky

In article <C5xr2w.Dnw.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:

   From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>

   > Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
   > please try to remember that there are more human activities than
   > those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
   > Priesthood.

   Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may 
    freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

The Priesthood has never quite forgiven
the merchants (aka Profiting Caste [sic])
for their rise to power, has it?

;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu 		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Ya know... you penguin types offend me. ...			*
*  My Gosh... Life is offensive!!   				*
*  Offensensitivity.		- BB 1984			*

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61153
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <1r9de3INNjkv@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes:

   In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
   >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
   >one  should be called 'Smiley'.

   Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
   object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

As it happens the _second_ one is Karla. The first one was
Smiley. All subject to the vagaries of the IAU of course,
but I think they might let this one slide...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  "The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his 	  *
*  revolution is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without  *
*  radical change. Telling people that paradise can be attained without   *
*  revolution is treason of the vilest kind."  -- H.S. 1993		  * 


Just had to try out my new .sig# on this forum ;-)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61154
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

jbreed@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:

>In article <C5ros0.uy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
>|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
>|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.

It's my understanding that the freezing will start to occur because of the
growing distance of Pluto and Charon from the Sun, due to it's
elliptical orbit. It is not due to shadowing effects. 

>Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
>sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
>our view of them either.  What am I missing?

Pluto can shadow Charon, and vice-versa.

George Krumins
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  George Krumins                                                              |
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                                   |
|  Pufferfish Observatory                                                      |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61155
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: What counntries do space surveillance?

      Ethnocentric USian that I am, I've assumed that we and the
xUSSR were the only countries with significant capabilities to track
non-cooperative objects in low Earth orbit. Grazing in a couple of 
databases recently,  I found that Japan has some optical capabilities
along this line, and also uses a radar designed for other purposes
for orbital debris surveys (it isn't clear whether the radar can 
determine orbital elements for the objects it detects). Abstracts of 
the articles are appended. 


    This leads to the more general question: do yet other people than 
the US, Russia, and Japan do space surveillance, and if so, how and 
why? 

Allen Thomson              SAIC                        McLean, VA, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ABSTRACTS

Optical tracking of the experimental geodetic satellite (EGS)
TAKABE, MASAO; ITABE, TOSHIKAZU; ARUGA, TADASHI
Radio Research Laboratory, Review (ISSN 0033-801X), vol. 34,
March 1988, p. 23-34. In Japanese, with abstract in English.
     This paper reports the optical tracking results of EGS
(experimental geodetic satellite) which was launched on August 13,
1986, by NASDA. The EGS optical tracking experiment process and an
outline of the Radio Research Laboratory (RRL) optical ground       <----
station are discussed. A star tracking technique for optical
equipment calibration and satellite tracking technique for orbit
prediction improvement are also described. The accuracy of EGS
tracking data obtained by RRL at the request of NASDA is also
discussed. In addition, it is briefly demonstrated that the
position of the Japanese amateur satellite (JAS-1) which was
launched with the EGS, was accurately determined by means of a      <----
satellite tracking video. It is clear from this experiment that     <----
optical observation data (i.e., satellite direction data) are very  <----
useful for satellite orbit determination during initial launch      <----
stages. Furthermore, the results confirm the effectivenes of these  <----
two satellite optical tracking techniques.                          <----


MU radar measurements of orbital debris
SATO, TORU; KAYAMA, HIDETOSHI; FURUSAWA, AKIRA; KIMURA, IWANE
(Kyoto University, Japan)
AIAA, NASA, and DOD, Orbital Debris Conference: Technical Issues and 
Future Directions, Baltimore, MD, Apr. 16-19, 1990. 10 p. 
RPN: AIAA PAPER 90-1343
     Distributions of orbital debris versus height and scattering cross 
section are determined from a series of observations made with a high-
power VHF Doppler radar (MU radar) of Japan. An automated data 
processing algorithm has been developed to discriminate echoes of 
orbiting objects from those of undesired signals such as meteor trail 
echoes or lightning atmospherics. Although the results are preliminary, 
they showed good agreement with those from NORAD tracking radar      <----
observations using a much higher frequency. It is found that the     <----
collision frequency of a Space Station of 1 km x 1 km size at an 
altitude of 500 km with orbiting debris is expected to be as high as 
once per two years. 


Monitoring of the MU radar antenna pattern by Satellite Ohzora (EXOS-C)
SATO, T.; INOOKA, Y.; FUKAO, S. (Kyoto Univ., Japan); KATO, S.
Kyoto Univ., Uji (Japan). Radio Atmospheric Science Center.
In International Council of Scientific Unions, Middle Atmosphere Program.
Handbook for MAP, Vol. 20 5 p
Publication Date: Jun. 1986
      As the first attempt among MST (mesosphere stratosphere 
troposphere) type radars, the MU (middle and upper atmosphere) radar 
features an active phased array system. Unlike the conventional large 
VHF radars, in which output power of a large vacuum tube is distributed 
to individual antenna elements, each of 475 solid state power amplifier 
feeds each antenna element. This system configuration enables very fast 
beam steering as well as various flexible operations by dividing the 
antenna into independent subarrays, because phase shift and signal 
division/combination are performed at a low signal level using 
electronic devices under control of a computer network. The antenna 
beam can be switched within 10 microsec to any direction within the 
zenith angle of 30 deg. Since a precise phase alignment of each element 
is crucial to realize the excellent performance of this system, careful 
calibration of the output phase of each power amplifier and antenna 
element was carried out. Among various aircraft which may be used for 
this purpose artificial satellites have an advantage of being able to 
make a long term monitoring with the same system. An antenna pattern 
monitoring system for the MU radar was developed using the scientific 
satellite OHZORA (EXOS-C). A receiver named MUM (MU radar antenna 
Monitor) on board the satellite measures a CW signal of 100 to 400 
watts transmitted from the MU radar. The principle of the measurement 
and results are discussed.


Equatorial radar system
FUKAO, SHOICHIRO;  TSUDA, TOSHITAKA; SATO, TORU; KATO, SUSUMU
(Kyoto University, Uji, Japan)
(COSPAR, IAGA, SCOSTEP, et al., Plenary Meeting, 27th,
Workshops and Symposium on the Earth's Middle Atmosphere,
Espoo, Finland, July 18-29, 1988) Advances in Space Research
(ISSN 0273-1177), vol. 10, no. 10, 1990, p. 151-154.
     A large clear air radar with the sensitivity of an incoherent 
scatter radar for observing the whole equatorial atmosphere up to 1000 
km altitude is now being designed in Japan. The radar will be built in 
Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia (0.03 deg N, 109.29 deg E). The 
system is a 47-MHz monostatic Doppler radar with an active phased array 
configuration similar to that of the MU radar in Japan, which has been 
in successful operation since 1983. It will have a PA product of about 
3 x 10 to the 9th W sq m (P = average transmitter power, A = effective 
antenna aperture) with a sensitivity of approximately 10 times that of 
the MU radar. This system configuration enables pulse-to-pulse beam 
steering within 20 deg from the zenith. As is the case of the MU radar, 
a variety of operations will be made feasible under the supervision of 
the radar controller. A brief description of the system configuration 
is presented. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61156
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/23/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                       MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             April 23, 1993
                              10:00 AM PDT

Flight Sequence C8 is active, the Spacecraft subsystems and instrument
payload performing well in Array Normal Spin and outer cruise
configuration, with uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink
at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 K Engineering data rate.

As a result of the spacecraft entering Contingency Mode on April 9, all
payload instruments were automatically powered off by on-board fault
protection software.  Gamma Ray Spectrometer Random Access Memory
was successfully reloaded on Monday, April 19.  To prepare for
Magnetometer Calibrations which were rescheduled for execution in Flight
Sequence C9 on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, a reload of Payload
Data System Random Access Memory will take place this morning
beginning at 10:30 AM.

Over this weekend, the Flight Team will send real-time commands to
perform Differential One-Way Ranging to obtain additional data for
analysis by the Navigation Team.  Radio Science Ultra Stable Oscillator
testing will take place on Monday .

The Flight Sequence C9 uplink will occur on Sunday, April 25, with
activation at Midnight, Monday evening April 26.  C9 has been modified to
include Magnetometer Calibrations which could not be performed in C8 due
to Contingency Mode entry on April 9.  These Magnetometer instrument
calibrations will allow the instrument team to better characterize the
spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument.
This information is critical to Martian magnetic field measurements
which occur during approach and mapping phases. MAG Cals will require
the sequence to command the spacecraft out of Array Normal Spin state
and perform slew and roll maneuvers to provide the MAG team data points
in varying spacecraft attitudes and orientations.

Today, the spacecraft is 22,971,250 km (14,273,673 mi.) from Mars
travelling at a velocity of 2.09 kilometers/second (4,677 mph) with
respect to Mars.  One-way light time is approximately 10 minutes, 38
seconds.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61157
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/23/93

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                         April 23, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, gathering
gravity data to plot the density variations of Venus in the
mid-latitudes.  The solar panel offpoint was returned to zero degrees
and spacecraft temperatures dropped 2-3 degrees C.

2.  An end-to-end test of the Delayed Aerobraking Data readout
process was conducted this week in preparation for the Transition
Experiment.  There was some difficulty locking up to the data frames,
and engineers are presently checking whether the problem was in
equipment at the tracking station.

3.  Magellan has completed 7277 orbits of Venus and is now 32 days
from the end of Cycle 4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.

4.  Magellan scientists were participating in the Brown-Vernadsky
Microsymposium at Brown University in Providence, RI, this week.  This
joint meeting of U.S. and Russian Venus researchers has been
continuing for many years.

5.  A three-day simulation of Transition Experiment aerobraking
activities is planned for next week, including Orbit Trim Maneuvers
and Starcal (Star calibration) Orbits.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61158
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <STEINLY.93Apr23130246@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1r9de3INNjkv@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes:
>
>   In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>   >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>   >one  should be called 'Smiley'.
>
>   Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
>   object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.
>
>As it happens the _second_ one is Karla. The first one was
>Smiley. All subject to the vagaries of the IAU of course,
>but I think they might let this one slide...

	Gee, I feel so ignorant now...

	Research, then post.

							James Nicoll


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61159
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign Chief Resigns for Health Reasons

In article <C5xuGL.Jow@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes...
>Writer Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post that Joseph Shea, the 
>head of the space station redesign has resigned for health reasons.
> 
>Shea was hospitalized shortly after his selection in February.  He returned
>yesterday to lead the formal presentation to the independent White House panel.
>Shea's presentation was rambling and almost inaudible.

I missed the presentations given in the morning session (when Shea gave
his "rambling and almost inaudible" presentation), but I did attend
the afternoon session. The meeting was in a small conference room. The
speaker was wired with a mike, and there were microphones on the table for
the panel members to use. Peons (like me) sat in a foyer outside the
conference room, and watched the presentations on closed circuit TV. In
general, the sound system was fair to poor, and some of the other
speakers (like the committee member from the Italian Space Agency)
also were "almost inaudible."

Shea didn't "lead the formal presentation," in the sense of running
or guiding the presentation. He didn't even attend the afternoon
session. Vest ran the show (President of MIT, the chair of the
advisory panel).

> 
>Shea's deputy, former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, will take over the effort.

Note that O'Connor has been running the day-to-day
operations of the of the redesign team since Shea got sick (which
was immediately after the panel was formed).


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61160
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?
From: lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham)

Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Hi,
>     I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in
> there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them
> when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to
> the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he
> estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not
> be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published
> in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
> long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
> fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
> course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?
> Can this be extended to larger accelerations?

are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

lan


> 
> Thanks is advance...
> -Amruth Laxman
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61161
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1r96hb$kbi@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
>>> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
>>===
>>I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
>>miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
>>people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
>>mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).
> 
> 
> Lot's of these small miners  are no longer miners.  THey are people living
> rent free on Federal land,  under the claim of being a miner.  The facts are
> many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining,  do not
> often even live their full time,  and do fotentimes do a fair bit
> of environmental damage.
> 
> These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's  when the west was
> uninhabited  and were designed to bring people into the frontier.  Times change
> people change.  DEAL.  you don't have a constitutional right to live off
> the same industry forever.  Anyone who claims the have a right to their
> job in particular,  is spouting nonsense.   THis has been a long term
> federal welfare program,  that has outlived it's usefulness.
> 
> pat
> 

Hum, do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? 
Come to Nome and meet some of these miners.. I am not sure how things go down
south in the lower 48 (I used to visit, but), of course to believe the
media/news its going to heck (or just plain crazy). 
Well it seems that alot of Unionist types seem to think that having a job is a
right, and not a priviledge. Right to the same job as your forbearers, SEE:
Kennedy's and tel me what you see (and the families they have married into).
There is a reason why many historians and poli-sci types use unionist and
socialist in the same breath.
The miners that I know, are just your average hardworking people who pay there
taxes and earn a living.. But taxes are not the answer. But maybe we could move
this discussion to some more appropriate newsgroup..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61162
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

In article <1993Apr23.155313.4220@dazixco.ingr.com> jbreed@ingr.com writes:
>|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
>|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
>|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.
>
>Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
>sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
>our view of them either.  What am I missing?

You're assuming that their normal rotation carries all areas of the surface
into sunlight.  Not so.  Even on Earth, each pole gets several weeks without
sunlight in mid-winter.  Pluto and Charon have much more extreme axial
tilt and a much longer orbit.  Pluto's north pole, for example, gets over
a century of darkness followed by over a century of perpetual light.

At the moment, we're in luck -- Pluto and Charon are just past their
equinox, when the Sun was just on the horizon at both poles (of each).
If we get probes there soon, only the immediate vicinity of one pole
(on each) will be in long-term shadow.  This will get steadily worse the
longer we wait.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61163
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Design Movies?

Is there a few Grasp pictures of space related items, namely Space Station
Designs, so you can see the "finished" revolt around..

If you don't know what a grasp prograsm is.. Check out some adult entertainment
files and see what I mean.. Or maybe geta few GIF files and create a "slide
shows" (I think Cshow can do this).. 

I liek to be able to see a space shuttle design in a AutoCAD program or to see
it revolt around and look at it.
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61164
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
From: thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

<<<most of message deleted>>>

> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

> Really, really depressed.
> 
>              Enzo

No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61165
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1993Apr23.184732.1105@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes...

   {Description of "External Tank" option for SSF redesign deleted}

>Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City,
>and he reports that he was warmly received.  However, the rumors
>I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter
>seems more likely.

Yo Ken, let's keep on-top of things! Both the "External Tank" and
"Wingless Orbiter" options have been deleted from the SSF redesign
options list. Today's (4/23) edition of the New York Times reports
that O'Connor told the panel that some redesign proposals have
been dropped, such as using the "giant external fuel tanks used
in launching space shuttles," and building a "station around
an existing space shuttle with its wings and tail removed."

Currently, there are three options being considered, as presented
to the advisory panel meeting yesterday (and as reported in
today's Times).

Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
This option is being studied by a team from MSFC. {As an aside,
there are SSF redesign teams at MSFC, JSC, and LaRC supporting
the SRT (Station Redesign Team) in Crystal City. Both LeRC and
Reston folks are also on-site at these locations, helping the respective
teams with their redesign activities.} Key features of this
option are:
  -  Uses "Bus-1", a modular bus developed by Lockheed that's
     qualified for STS and ELV's. The bus provides propulsion, GN&C
     Communications, & Data Management. Lockheed developed this
     for the Air Force.
  -  A "Power Station Capability" is obtained in 3 Shuttle Flights.
     SSF Solar arrays are used to provide 20 kW of power. The vehicle
     flies in an "arrow mode" to optimize the microgravity environment.
     Shuttle/Spacelab missions would utilize the vehilce as a power
     source for 30 day missions.
  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
     of man-tended capability) is achieved by the addition of the
     US Common module. This is a modified version of the existing
     SSF Lab module (docking ports are added for the International
     Partners' labs, taking the place of the nodes on SSF). The
     Shuttle can be docked to the station for 60 day missions.
     The Orbiter would provide crew habitability & EVA capability.
  -  International Human Tended. Add the NASDA & ESA modules, and
     add another 20 kW of power
  -  Permanent Human Presence Capability. Add a 3rd power module,
     the U.S. habitation module, and an ACRV (Assured Crew Return
     Vehicle).

Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
The Option "B" team is based at LaRC, and is lead by Mike Griffin.
This option looks alot like the existing SSF design, which we
have all come to know and love :)

This option assumes a lightweight external tank is available for
use on all SSF assembly flights (so does option "A"). Also, the 
number of flights is computed for a 51.6 inclination orbit,
for both options "A" and "B".

The build-up occurs in six phases:
  -  Initial Research Capability reached after 3 flights. Power
     is transferred from the vehicle to the Orbiter/Spacelab, when
     it visits.
  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
     language) is achieved after 8 flights. The U.S. Lab is
     deployed, and 1 solar power module provides 20 kW of power.
  -  Permanent Human Presence Capability occurs after 10 flights, by
     keeping one Orbiter on-orbit to use as an ACRV (so sometimes
     there would be two Orbiters on-orbit - the ACRV, and the
     second one that comes up for Logistics & Re-supply).
  -  A "Two Fault Tolerance Capability" is achieved after 14 flights,
     with the addition of a 2nd power module, another thermal
     control system radiator, and more propulsion modules.
  -  After 20 flights, the Internationals are on-board. More power,
     the Habitation module, and an ACRV are added to finish the
     assembly in 24 flights.

Most of the systems currently on SSF are used as-is in this option, 
with the exception of the data management system, which has major
changes.

Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
  - 7 berthing ports
  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
    (twice the volume of skylab).
  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
  - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
    loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
  - increased crew time for utilization
  - 1 micro-g thru out the core module

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61166
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
>Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
>
 (excerpts from posting on this topic) 

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.  
>... 
>>... the real purpose of the project is to help the environment! 
>>The platform will carry ozone monitors 
>
>... 
>I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
>effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
>but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
>be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
>it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
>as it goes zipping across the sky.
>

(I've seen satellites at midnight - they're not only in twilight.) :o) 

>...
>
>From the book "Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla" by John J. O'Neill:
>
>"This remarkable conductivity of gases, including the air, at low
>pressures, led Tesla to suggest, in a published statement in 1914, a
>system of lighting on a terrestrial scale in which he proposed to treat
>the whole Earth, with its surrounding atmosphere, as if it were a
>single lamp....  
>The whole Earth would be transformed into a giant lamp, with the night 
>sky completely illuminated.  ... making the night as bright as day."
> 

Now my comments: 

I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly 
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for 
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I 
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may 
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred - 
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars 
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and 
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time 
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man. 
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.  
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there 
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief 
in an afterlife.  

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks 
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light 
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people 
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating 
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or 
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.  
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky. 

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live 
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport 
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The 
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists 
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped 
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life 
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels 
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains 
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing, 
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed 
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80 
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters 
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of 
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect. 

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't 
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever - 
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch 
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer, 
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.  
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at 
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.  

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage 
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at 
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the 
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it 
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could 
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky 
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that 
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid, 
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61167
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
>
> All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the
> moon for a year is wise and/or useful.  How about:  A prize for the
> first
> non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a
> manned
> moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from
> lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth. 
> Find
> some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure...  Having a single
> goal
> might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person
> appeared
> to win.  And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little
> scary
> about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters.  I'd
> like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition.
>
> Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was
> an
> English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases
> on
> the cheap.  I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human
> body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from
> solar
> flares, etc.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. 
> Does this ring a bell to anyone?
>
> Craig Keithley                    |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
> Apple Computer, Inc.              |I got no memory of anything at all"
> keithley@apple.com                |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)
>

I love the idea of progressive developmental prizes, but the assumption
has
been all along that only the U.S. Gummint could fund the prizes.  It
wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing ... BUT ...

An eccentric billionaire COULD offer such a prize or series of prizes.

Anyone know H. Ross Perot or Bill Gates personally?

John G.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61168
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


----- News saved at 23 Apr 93 22:22:40 GMT
In article <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
>  This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary, 
>ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!
  

>  "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is 
>closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase 
>of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion. 
>(defining edge = 0 ether spin)  

>  To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history.  

Well, I'm working on it, but getting a little impatient. So far, 
I've made it through Egyptian, Chinese, and Greek cultures, and
up through the Rennaisance. But so far, these insights just don't 
seem to be gelling. Perhaps it's in an appendix somewhere.

In its own right, though, the history is kind of fun. Lots of 
good yarns in there, with varied and interesting characters. And,
more to come.





 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61169
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
...
>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
Come to think of it, they might send someone on
a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

>Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61170
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?)

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

...
>Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a
>fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up
>fast.  I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a
>technical education to follow them up.  Too bad I wound up in an
>assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day...
>(-:

How can you tell they're identical?

You got one of them "Star Drek: The Next Syndication" neutrino
scanners?
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61171
Subject: DC-X/Y/1 question
From: kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)



   I've been following discussions about the Delta Clipper program, and I
have one small question.  As I understand it, the DC-X derived orbital
vehicle (DC-Y & 1) is to reenter the atmosphere sort of sideways, not
completely nose-first.  So why is the DC-Y look symmetric in every drawing
I've seen?  I would think that an asymmetric design, sort of like 
wingless Orbiter, may work better, since less shielding is required on the
top side.  Can anybody explain?  

- Ken Kobayashi
kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ken Kobayashi              |   
kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu        |   "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61172
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: DC-Y trajectory simulation


I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've 
transcribed some of my notes below.  Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine.  Permission is 
granted to copy this without restriction.

Note for newbies:  The Delta Clipper project is geared towards producing a
single staget to orbit, reusable launch vehicle.  The DC-X vehicle is a 1/3
scale vehicle designed to test some of the concepts invovled in SSTO.  It is 
currently undergoing tests.  The DC-Y vehicle would be a full scale 
experimental vehicle capable of reaching orbit.  It has not yet been funded.

On April 6th, Rocky Nelson of MacDonnell Douglas gave a talk entitled 
"Optimizing Techniques for Advanced Space Missions" here at the University of
Illinois. Mr Nelson's job involves using software to simulate trajectories and
determine the optimal trajectory within given requirements.  Although he is
not directly involved with the Delta Clipper project, he has spent time with 
them recently, using his software for their applications.  He thus used 
the DC-Y project for most of his examples.  While I don't think the details
of implicit trajectory simulation are of much interest to the readers (I hope
they aren't - I fell asleep during that part), I think that many of you will
be interested in some of the details gleaned from the examples.

The first example given was the maximization of payload for a polar orbit.  The
main restriction is that acceleration must remain below 3 Gs.  I assume that
this is driven by passenger constraints rather than hardware constraints, but I
did not verify that.  The Delta Clipper Y version has 8 engines - 4 boosters
and 4 sustainers.  The boosters, which have a lower isp, are shut down in 
mid-flight.  Thus, one critical question is when to shut them down.  Mr Nelson
showed the following plot of acceleration vs time:
                  ______
3 G         /|   /      |
           / |  /       |          As ASCII graphs go, this is actually fairly 
          /  | /        |	   good.  The big difference is that the lines
2 G      /   |/         |          made by the  /  should be curves which are
        /               |          concave up.  The data is only approximate, as
       /                |          the graph wasn't up for very long.
1 G   /                 |
                        |
                        |
0 G                     |

             ^          ^
           ~100 sec    ~400 sec


As mentioned before, a critical constraint is that G levels must be kept below
3.  Initially, all eight engines are started.  As the vehicle  burns fuel the
accelleration increases.  As it gets close to 3G, the booster engines are 
throtled back.  However, they quickly become inefficient at low power, so it
soon makes more sense to cut them off altogether.  This causes the dip in 
accelleration at about 100 seconds.  Eventually the remaining sustainer engines
bring the G level back up to about 3 and then hold it there until they cut
out entirely.

The engine cutoff does not acutally occur in orbit.  The trajectory is aimed
for an altitude slightly higher than the 100nm desired and the last vestiges of
air drag slow the vehicle slightly, thus lowering the final altitude to 
that desired.

Questions from the audience:  (paraphrased)

Q:  Would it make sense to shut down the booster engines in pairs, rather than
    all at once?

A:  Very perceptive.  Worth considering.  They have not yet done the simulation.    Shutting down all four was part of the problem as given.

Q:  So what was the final payload for this trajectory?

A:  Can't tell us.  "Read Aviation Leak."  He also apparently had a good 
    propulsion example, but was told not to use it.  

My question:  Does anyone know if this security is due to SDIO protecting
national security or MD protecting their own interests?

The second example was reentry simulation, from orbit to just before the pitch
up maneuver.  The biggest constraint in this one is aerodynamic heating, and 
the parameter they were trying to maximize was crossrange.  He showed graphs
of heating using two different models, to show that both were very similar,
and I think we were supposed to assume that this meant they were very accurate.
The end result was that for a polar orbit landing at KSC, the DC-Y would have
about 30 degrees of crossrange and would start it's reentry profile about 
60 degrees south latitude.

I would have asked about the landing maneuvers, but he didn't know about that
aspect of the flight profile.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61173
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: RIMSAT, US/Russian joint venture


I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've 
transcribed some of my notes below.  Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine.  Permission is 
granted to copy this without restriction.

Michael Sternberg, Cheif of Operations of RIMSAT, was invited to speak at an
informal lunch held by ACDIS here on the campus of the University of Illinois.
ACDIS is an organization on campus that deals with Arms Control, Disarmament and
International Security.  RIMSAT was considered an appropriate topic because the
company is using Russian launchers and satellites.  I think it also helped that
his daughter is a grad student in the International Relations program.

The concept behind RIMSAT apparently began when Matt Neilson (?) went to Tonga
to visit a friend.  While he was there, he somehow ended up visiting the king,
who happened to be a big TV fan.  Matt bought the King a satellite dish, which 
the king thought was really nifty.  Since Tonga has a GNP of about $70 million,
His Majesty asked if there was any way to make money off this.  Matt thought
there probably was, so at his suggestion, Tonga applied for 31 geosynchronous
satellite slots.  While this isn't entirely off the wall, it was very unusual,
seeing as Tonga was a tiny kingdom with no space program, and 31 is a lot of
slots.

The whole thing was debated in the appropriate regulatory agency and Carl
Hilliard (who is apparently a respected space lawyer) wrote several opinions
supporting Tonga's case.  Eventually Tonga ended up with 7 slots, ranging from 
70 E to 170 E (slots are designated by the longitude over which they reside).
According to Sternberg, four of these, from 130 E to 142 E are the best in the
world because they are excellently placed for communications between Hawaii and 
the Pacific Rim. 

RIMSAT was formed to use these slots. It was officially formed in Nevis as a tax
haven.  They tried for a few years to raise funds in the west, however, to
fill 7 slots with western satellites launched on western launchers would have
cost approximately $2 billion.  It's not easy to raise that kind of money.
Eventually, they hit upon the idea of using Russian hardware.  They began 
negotiating with Glavkosmos for hardware.  Mr Sternberg describes operating in 
Moscow in such harsh terms that I don't think I'll visit there for a long time.
Besides a significant lack of creature comforts, he was not happy with the way
that people operate.  For example "everybody can sell you everything."  
Everyone can show the proper documents and licenses that indicate they are the
only ones who have the authority to sell what ever you want to by.

Eventually, RIMSAT arranged a deal with Glavkosmos for 6 satellites at a cost
of $150 million.  However, Glavkosmos lost favor after the coup.  Sternberg
says that this is because they were basically a bunch of KGB operatives who 
went to trade shows and picked up lots of brochures.  Since Glavkosmos was
out of power, he had to renegotiate the deal with the new authorities.  He
again described life in a Moscow hotel in rather unfavorable terms.  Eventually,
he worked out a deal and on Dec 4, 1992 he met with Koptev, who heads the 
Russian space program, to sign the deal.  Koptev insisted on a few concessions
before signing and according to Sternberg he arranged these new rules to 
allow himself to form another company to do the exact same thing as RIMSAT.

The next step was to meet with the builders of the hardware, NPO Applied 
Mechanics -- NPO PM to use their acronym.  This organization is located in 
Siberia (can't figure out how to spell the town, I need an atlas) and has built
about 1500 vehicles since the dawn of the space age.  Sternberg commented that
siberians are very different from Musovites.  They are hard workers, honest
people who team up to get things done, very much like midwesterners.  At this
point there were some comments from the audience that agreed with his opinion on
both siberians and midwesterners :-)

Sternberg had lots of good things to say about NPO PM.  His company is 
apparently lookng for $100 million to invest in the firm to become 50% partners.It apparently costs the Russians about $4 million to build a satellite that
would sell for $50 million in the west.  If you want to give them 
specifications, they'll build you a satellite.  For the particular satellites
that RIMSAT will be using, costs run about $378,000 per transponder year.  This
compares to $810,000 t/y in the U.S.  They can sell their time for about $1.1
million compared to $2.6 million in the U.S.  RIMSAT will launch their 
satellites on Protons.  To get the best prices, they bought in bulk.  They 
have the rights to twelve launches, so if any of you need a lift I can give
you their address.  The first launch is scheduled for October and they are
getting one used satellite from the Russians, which is being moved into place
now.

Tidbits:

*  Sternberg says this kind of thing has to be done by entrepreneurs, not big
business because big business is just like what they have over there, except
that "we have better paper, both in the bathroom and in the copier."

*  Russian launches are self insured.  The promise to replace a failed launch
within 9 months.

*  Major investors in RIMSAT include Russell 20/20, which is a huge retirement
fund organization, Cellsat, which is a big telecom business in southeast Asia,
and a fund operated by some of the big names in U.S aerospace which he says is
sort of an insurance policy for them if this really takes off.

*  He downplayed the instabilites in the ex-USSR saying that we are worried
partly because we aren't used to seeing Russia as anything but an unvarying
monolith.  Italy gets a new government "every two weeks" but we don't worry 
because we're used to it.  He predicted that once we get used to seeing what
really goes on in Russia we won't worry about their stability as much.

*  Part of the problem with cooperative ventures is the problem of transfering
money.  The central bank has a policy of taking hard currency payments, putting
25% in their coffers and replacing the rest with the "equivalent" value in 
rubles.  To get around this, RIMSAT pays their hard currency into an Austrian
bank account.  NPO PM then pays their contractors with foreign currency so that
the only the contractors get swindled by the government.

*  One of the big problems RIMSAT has had is stonewalling by the western 
satellite industry.  However, Intelsat recently bought three of the same type
of satellites, which was rather reassuring.

*  The biggest worry most people have about russian satellites is the primitive
technology and shorter lifetime.  The older Gorizont (Horizon) satellites have
a lifetime of about 5 years, while the more modern Express satellites compare
well with western technology and last about 8 years.  While this is much 
shorter than 15 years for western satellites, Sternberg downplayed the 
difference.  At these prices they can afford to launch new ones.  In addition,
shorter lifetimes mean that they can replace their equipment with newer
technology so they will be able to compete better than older, out of date
hardware.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61174
From: mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:

...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...

>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>  - 7 berthing ports
>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power

Only 10KW?

>  - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
>    loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
>  - increased crew time for utilization
>  - 1 micro-g thru out the core module

Ha!  "North America Modular SPACE STATION construction" :-)
Same apprach, same reasoning: "construction occurs under assembly
line conditions, no random weather problems interupting site-work
on your home - better quality control" -- sounds like first "-"
point above :-)

Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu      [work]
Dept. Head-Computer & Network Systems +           mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home]
UMCEES / CBL (Solomons Island)        + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61175
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <1993Apr20.142747.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu  
writes:
> In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)  
writes:
> >    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
> > black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
> > on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
> > "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
> > It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.
> > 
> > Doug Loss
> 
> 
> Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an
> astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future  
of
> space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space..
> 


A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
have expected a more visible/meaningful role.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61176
From: looper@cco.caltech.edu (Mark D. Looper)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>Galileo's HGA  is stuck.   

>The HGA was left closed,  because galileo  had a venus flyby.

>If the HGA were pointed att he sun,  near venus,  it would
>cook the foci elements.

>question:  WHy couldn't Galileo's  course manuevers have been
>designed such that the HGA  did not ever do a sun point.?

The HGA isn't all that reflective in the wavelengths that might "cook the
focal elements", nor is its figure good on those scales--the problem is
that the antenna _itself_ could not be exposed to Venus-level sunlight,
lest like Icarus' wings it melt.  (I think it was glues and such, as well
as electronics, that they were worried about.)  Thus it had to remain
furled and the axis _always_ pointed near the sun, so that the small
sunshade at the tip of the antenna mast would shadow the folded HGA.
(A larger sunshade beneath the antenna shielded the spacecraft bus.)

--Mark Looper
"Hot Rodders--America's first recyclers!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61177
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
hyperspace :-)

but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

pat  


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61178
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL

In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes
>describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer
>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five


Too bad they didn't  give him a tour of the CGRO data?

I think he'd be fascinated by the Gamma ray bursters.  The mind of
hawking might even propose a mechanism.


SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?  carries an
aluminum-gold  set of grateful dead albums?   inquiring minds
want to know?

And why would MO  carry any features for being drag free?  I thought
aero-braking was a possible MO  experimental activity?

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61179
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1r6mcgINNe87@gap.caltech.edu+ kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
+In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+ wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
+++
++Once inflated the substance was no longer
++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
++disastrous deflation.
+
+preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
+a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
+catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
+
+The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.

No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61180
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Level 5?



WHile we are on the subject of the shuttle software.

what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61181
From: S901924@mailserv.cuhk.hk
Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise

In article <C4M8E5.AuD@csn.org> et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
>Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
>Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity?
>Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT
>In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>>> physics.
>>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>>> string theory?
>>
>>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>>including the omni-present "black holes."
>>
>>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-
>
>"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
>no properties."
>"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
>space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
>is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
>for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla
>
>----
> ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
>----

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61182
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) are seen coming equally from all directions.
However, given the number of bright ones, there are too few faint
ones to be consistent with being equally dense for as far
as we can see--it is as if they are all contained within
a finite sphere (or a sphere with fuzzy edges) with us at the
center.  (These measurements are statistical, and you can
always hide a sufficiently small number of a different
type of GRB with a different origin in the data.  I am assuming
that there is only one population of GRBs).

The data indicates that we are less than 10% of the radius of the center
of the distribution.  The only things the Earth is at the exact center
of are the Solar system (at the scale of the Oort cloud of comets
way beyond Pluto) and the Universe.  Cosmological theories, placing
GRBs throughout the Universe, require supernova-type energies to
be released over a timescale of milliseconds.  Oort cloud models
tend to be silly, even by the standards of astrophysics.

If GRBs were Galactic (i.e. distributed through the Milky Way Galaxy)
you would expect them to be either concentrated in the plane of
the Galaxy (for a 'disk' population), or towards the Galactic center
(for a spherical 'halo' population).  We don't see this, so if they
are Galactic, they must be in a halo at least 250,000 light years in
radius, and we would probably start to see GRBs from the Andromeda
Galaxy (assuming that it has a similar halo.)  For comparison, the
Earth is 25,000 light-years from the center of the Galaxy.

>my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
>hyperspace :-)

The aren't concentrated in the known spacelanes, and we don't
see many coming from Zeta Reticuli and Tau Ceti.

>but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
>are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
>if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

There are more than 130 GRB different models in the refereed literature.
Right now, the theorists have a sort of unofficial moratorium
on new models until new observational evidence comes in.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61183
From: Pat.Hoage@f6507.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Hoage)
Subject: army in space

I just got out of the Army. Go signal corps or Intelligence; 
photointelligence interpretation. If you go ADA you might get to play with 
rockets but space will look pretty far away dug in the mud next to a grunt 
protecting the foward troops from low flying objects. Good Luck  
 

 * Origin: *AmeriComm*, 214/373-7314. Dallas'Info Source. (1:124/6507)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61184
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.


Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,  

and besides.

Maybe she can't act:-)

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61185
From: byab314@chpc.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr23.140649.1@rhea.arc.ab.ca> thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca writes:
>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
>
>No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
>so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.

  Thanks for these surreal moments....
                                               Srinivas
-- 
Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : byab314@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. (512) 471 4332
BITNET : byab314@uthermes

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61186
From: rlennip4@mach1.wlu.ca (robert lennips 9209 U)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

Please get a REAL life.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61187
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)

In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept." 
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?

	I am puzzled by the term "concept." Drag free may already have
been flown. It was the idea behind putting up a spacecraft that would
more accurately respond to motions from the Earth's gravity field and
ignore drag. It was proposed many years ago and involved a ball
floating between sensors whose job it was to signal to little
adjustment jets to keep the ball away from them. The ball itself would
then be in a drag free condition and respond only to gravity
anisotropies, whereas the spacecraft itself would be continuously
adjusting its position to compensate for drag.


Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61188
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission


  Did the Russian spacecraft(s) on the ill-fated Phobos mission a few
years ago send back any images of the Martian moon?  If so, does anyone know if
they're housed at an ftp site?
  Thanks.
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61189
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

Another fish to check out is Richard Rast -- he works
for Lockheed Missiles, but is on-site at NASA Johnson.

Nick Johnson at Kaman Sciences in Colo. Spgs and his
friend, Darren McKnight at Kaman in Alexandria, VA.

Good luck.

R. Landis

"Behind every general is his wife.... and...
 behind every Hillary is a Bill . ."



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61190
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Book

What in blazes is going on with Wayne Matson and gang
down in Alabama?  I also heard an unconfirmed rumor that
Aerospace Ambassadors have disappeared.  Can anyone else
confirm??

++Rob Landis
   STScI, Baltimore, MD



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61191
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) ...

Glad to see Griffin is spending his time on engineering rather than on
ritual purification of the language.  Pity he got stuck with the turkey
rather than one of the sensible options.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61192
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>... The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, actually, since they weren't
building spares of the station hardware anyway.  (Dumb.)  At least this
is only one launch to fail.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61193
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1raejd$bf4@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
>was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
>wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
>of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
>resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.

This sounds like another of Ali AbuTaha's 57 different "real causes" of
the Challenger accident.  As far as I know, there has never been the
slightest shred of evidence for a "harmonic resonance" having occurred.

The windshear-induced maneuvering probably *did* contribute to opening
up the leak path in the SRB joint again -- it seems to have sealed itself
after the puffs of smoke during liftoff -- but the existing explanation
of this and related events seems to account for the evidence adequately.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61194
From: dgempey@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (David Gordon Empey)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


In <1993Apr23.165459.3323@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:

>In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

>[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]


>Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
>in Somalia!)

>To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)

Well, I thought it must have been a joke, but I don't get the 
joke in the name. Read it aloud? David MACaloon. David MacALLoon.
David macalOON. I don't geddit.

-Dave Empey (speaking for himself)
>-- 
>Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet! 



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61195
From: maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU (T. Giaquinto)
Subject: General Information Request


	I am looking for any information about the space program.
This includes NASA, the shuttles, history, anything!  I would like to
know if anyone could suggest books, periodicals, even ftp sites for a
novice who is interested in the space program.



					Todd Giaquinto
					maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU
					

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61196
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  Where are they? 
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>   What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
> 
> Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
> 
> Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   
> 
> my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
> hyperspace :-)
> 
> but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
> are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
> if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
> 
> pat  
        Well, lets see....I took a class on this last fall, and I have no
notes so I'll try to wing it...  
        Here's how I understand it. Remember from stellar evolution that 
black holes and neutron stars(pulsars) are formed from high mass stars,
M(star)=1.4M(sun).  High mass stars live fast and burn hard, taking
appoximately 10^5-10^7 years before going nova, or supernova.  In this time,
they don't live long enough to get perturbed out of the galactic plane, so any
of these (if assumed to be the sources of GRB's) will be in the plane of the
galaxy.  
        Then we take the catalog of bursts that have been recieved from the
various satellites around the solar system, (Pioneer Venus has one, either
Pion. 10 or 11, GINGA, and of course BATSE) and we do distribution tests on our
catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an 
analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.  
        I should throw in why halo, and corona models don't work, also.  As I
said before, looking at the possible astrophysics of the bursts, (short
timescales, high energy) black holes, and pulsars exhibit much of this type of
behavior.  If this is the case, as I said before, these stars seem to be bound
to the disk of the galaxy, especially the most energetic of the these sources.
When you look at a simulated model, where the bursts are confined to the disk,
but you sample out to large distances, say 750 mpc, you should definitely see
not only an anisotropy towards you in all direction, but a clumping of sources 
in the direction of the  galactic center.  As I said before, there is none of
these characteristics.  
        
        I think that's all of it...if someone needs clarification, or knows
something that I don't know, by all means correct me.  I had the honor of
taking the Bursts class with the person who has done the modeling of these
different distributions, so we pretty much kicked around every possible
distribution there was, and some VERY outrageous sources. Colliding pulsars,
black holes, pulsars that are slowing down...stuff like that.   It's a fun
field. 
        Complaints and corrections to: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu or 
post here.  
                                                        -jeremy

        

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61197
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days



SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.

How will said re-boost be done?

Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,  

unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,

then return to earth?

My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?

why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
tilt  motor  fix.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61198
From: oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission

Yes, the Phobos mission did return some useful data including images of Phobos
itself. The best I've seen had a surface resolution of about 40 meters. By
the way, the new book entitled "Mars" (Kieffer et al, 1992, University of
Arizona Press) has a great chapter on spacecraft exploration of the planet.
The chapter is co-authored by V.I. Moroz of the Space Research Institute in
Moscow, and includes details never before published in the West. Don't
know of any ftp sites with images though.

Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61199
From: C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk (CHA WONG)
Subject: How can you see the launch of the Space Shuttle ?


Sorry for asking a question that's not entirely based on the
technical aspects of space, but I couldn't find the
answer on the FAQs !

I'm currently in the UK, which makes seeing a Space Shuttle
launch a little difficult.....

However, I have been selected to be an exchange student
at Louisiana State Uni. from August, and I am absolutely
determined to get to see a Space Shuttle launch sometime
during the year at which I will be in America.

I hear there's a bit of a long mailing list, so if someone
can tell me how to get tickets and where to get them from, then
please E-mail me !

Thanks very much for your patience....

(And if anyone else wants to know, tell me and I'll summarize
for you - just to save all those poor people who have to
pay for their links !)
-- 
===============================    April is the cruellest month
Andrew Wong                    \   Mixing memory and desire
-----x-----                     \
E-mail:C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk \ T.S.Eliot - The Wasteland 1918

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61200
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>How will said re-boost be done?
>Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,  
>unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,
>then return to earth?

Actually, the reboost will probably be done last, so that there is a fuel
reserve during the EVAs (in case they have to chase down an adrift
astronaut or something like that).  But yes, you've got the idea -- the
reboost is done by taking the whole shuttle up.

>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost...

Somebody has to build that thruster module; it's not an off-the-shelf
item.  Nor is it a trivial piece of hardware, since it has to include
attitude control (HST's own is not strong enough to compensate for things
like thruster imbalance), guidance (there is no provision to feed gyro
data from HST's own gyros to an external device), and separation (you
don't want it left attached afterward, if only to avoid possible
contamination after the telescope lid is opened again).  You also get
to worry about whether the lid is going to open after the reboost is
done and HST is inaccessible to the shuttle (the lid stays closed for
the duration of all of this to prevent mirror contamination from
thrusters and the like).

The original plan was to use the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to do the
reboost.  The OMV was planned to be a sort of small space tug, well
suited to precisely this sort of job.  Unfortunately, it was costing
a lot to develop and the list of definitely-known applications was
relatively short, so it got cancelled.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61201
Subject: Re:  PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)

In article <1993Apr22.213815.12288@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
>> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
>If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
>McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
>choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
>guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?
>
>It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
>are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
>wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
>have the problems that we do.
>
>[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
>quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]

Was that post for real? I thought it was a late April Fool joke. Some of it
seemed a bit over the top even by McElwaine/Abian/etc standards :-)

--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ............ alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
      "And crawling on the planet's face
      Some insects called the human race
      Lost in time and lost in space"      (RHPS)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61202
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Re: Space billboards

Even easier to implement than writing messages on the Moon, once upon
a time a group of space activists I belonged to in Seattle considered
a "Goodyear Blimp in orbit".  The idea was to use a large structure
that could carry an array of lights like the Goodyear Blimp has.
Placed in a low Earth orbit of high inclination, it could eventually
be seen by almost everyone on Earth.  Only our collective disapproval
of cluttering up space with such a thing stopped us from pursuing
it.  It had quite feasible economics, which I will not post here
because I don't want to encourage the idea (if you want to do such
a thing, go figure it out for yourself).

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61203
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)



Joe,

	your description sounds like one of the  gravity probe  spacecraft
ideas.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61204
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr22.184650.4833@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
>sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.

definitely a lemur.

Elvis couldn't spell,  just listen to any of his songs.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61205
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
>Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
>Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
>the arctic circle.



If you want to have some fun.

Plug the basic formulas  into Lotus.

Use the spreadsheet auto re-calc,  and graphing functions
to produce  bar graphs  based on latitude,  tilt  and hours of day light avg.


pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61206
From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Subject: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
Thanks in advance.

--

bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill

You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61207
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Commercial Space News #22

COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22

   This is number twenty-two in an irregular series on commercial 
space activities.  The commentaries included are my thoughts on 
these developments.  

   Sigh... as usual, I've gotten behind in getting this column 
written.  I can only plead the exigency of the current dynamics in 
the space biz.  This column is put together at lunch hour and after 
the house quiets down at night, so data can quickly build up if 
there's a lot of other stuff going on.  I've complied a lot of 
information and happenings since the last column, so I'm going to 
have to work to keep this one down to a readable length.  Have fun! 

CONTENTS:
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT" 
5- ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT
7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
FINAL NOTES
  
ARTICLES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
   The US Department of Commerce projects US commercial space sales 
will remain flat in 1993, with current data showing only a 2 percent 
growth over 1992.  As published in "US Industrial Outlook 1993" 
(which was released in January), revenues from the 1993 US space 
business are currently projected to be about $4,890 M. 
   In contrast to previous years when US commercial space sales had 
shown double digits growth rates, this year's projected results are 
driven by the US satellite manufacturing industry, where sales are 
projected to drop from 12 satellites worth $1,300 M in 1992 to 7 
satellites worth $ 670 M in 1993.  The US Industrial Outlook also 
projects U.S. commercial launchers faces flat demand in coming year, 
and while predicting that 1993 revenues will increase 10 percent to 
$450 M, future sales will be "adversely affected by the downward 
revision in Department of Defense launch plans."                           
   Offsetting flat launch revenues and satellite deliveries, 
revenues for fixed and mobile satellite services are projected to 
increase to $1,900 M, primarily driven by increased revenues from 
broadcast and cable TV networks.  Similarly, remote sensing products 
and sales are projected to increase to $250 M in 1993 (up 15%). 

 US COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUES     1989  1990   1991 1992(r) 1993(e)
 Commercial satellites             900 1,000  1,100  1,300     670
 Satellite services                750   800  1,200  1,500   1,900
   Fixed                          (700) (735)(1,115)(1,275) (1,520)
   Mobile                          (50) ( 65)(   85)(  225) (  380)
 Satellite ground equip            790   860  1,350  1,400   1,560
   Mobile equipment                (40)  (85)  (280)  (352)    ???
 Commercial launches               150   570    380    450     450
 Remote sensing data and services  125   155    190    215     250
 Private microgravity research lab  --    --     --     --      60
                                 ===== =====  ======  =====   =====
   TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES         2,715 3,385   4,220  4,815   4,890
        (r) = revised data for 1992   (e) = estimated data for 1993
   [Commentary: This is the first look at how the US commercial 
space industry is expected to do in 1993.  In general, not a bad 
report -- with most of the bad news concentrated in the satellite 
manufacturing area.  There, changes of only a few satellites worth 
$100 M or so apiece can substantially influence the annual 
projection.  If we look forward over several years, this market 
sector should retain strong sales as US firms have been very 
successful in regaining international market share in the satellite 
business. 
   Furthermore, sales of satellite ground equipment should go up in 
the next revision of this data, expected to be released about mid-
year.  Data on mobile satellite ground equipment sales (including 
such items as GPS receivers and portable satellite terminals) 
appears to be missing from the January data set.  DoC usually 
publishes a listing of  "Space Business Indicators" in mid-year, and 
the next revision of commercial space revenues should be released 
then.  I expect the revised revenues should easily top $5,000 M, if 
the mobile satellite ground equipment are added back into the 
numbers, and the year should show about a 10% overall market growth. 
   Looking beyond this year's data, future markets look quite 
promising.  The DoC projects satellite service revenues could top 
$3,000 M by 1995 if new mobile satellite services and direct 
broadcasting are implemented as planned, and that mobile satellite 
station sales are expected to continue to growth at 15-20 % per year 
through the mid 1990's.  My numbers are somewhat more pessimistic 
for near-term market growth, but I agree the trend should be for 
substantial growth in US commercial space sales over at least the 
next 5-10 years.  (My pessimism is due to more conservative 
assumptions on market capture and growth in LEO communications and 
satellite direct broadcasting services.  I don't believe all of the 
current players in the yet-to-be-born LEO communications satellite 
market and in the yet-to-be-proven direct broadcasting market will 
be financial successes, nor that sales growth will be as explosive 
as currently projected.) 
   It should also be noted this year's DoC data is the first 
release to show revenues from privately funded microgravity research 
facilities.  The $60 M shown in the Janurary data is primarily for 
the Spacehab module, planned for launch in April on the Space 
Shuttle, but also hidden in these numbers are the projected first 
sales from the COMET orbital launch and recovery experiment module.] 

2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
   McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which builds and markets the Delta 
launch vehicle has won two important launch contracts.  Motorola 
Inc. announced in mid February that it had selected the Delta to 
launch most of the satellites in the 66-satellite Iridium LEO 
communications constellation, and in mid April, McDonnell Douglas 
was awarded the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle III contract. 
   The launch services contract with Motorola for the Iridium 
constellation launch is for at launch of least 45 Iridium 
satellites.  Another 21 satellites have been contracted to be 
launched by Khrunichev Enterprise in Russian on 3 Proton vehicle 
launches.  These 45 satellites planned for the Delta will be 
launched 5 at a time,  providing for at least 9 launches.  
Additional satellites in the Iridium constellation, such as a 
planned on-orbit spares, may also be launched on Delta.  Although 
details of the launch services contract were reported to be 
negotiation, and not yet final. 
   The USAF MLV contract also went to MDC, bidding a variant of 
their Delta II launcher.  This contract is only initially worth $7.5 
million, but establishes a set of launch options for up to 36 
launches, encompassing launches from 1996 through 2002.  These 
launches will deploy the next generation of the USAF's Global 
Positioning System Block IIR navigation satellites, plus other 
programs.  First option for to meet the USAF launch options is 
expected to be exercised this year, after which the USAF is expected 
to request launches of up to 6 Deltas per year for at least 6 years.  
Under this contract the USAF can also request "launch on demand" 
services from MDC for the 1996-2002 time period, with a launch to 
occur within 40 days of the request. 
    [Commentary:  If these two contracts are fulfilled, they should 
provide an excellent business base for MDC's Delta launch program 
through the turn of the century.  Combined, these two contracts have 
a potential for about 45 launches, worth about $2,200 M to MDC, and 
sustaining a core business base of $300-400 M/year.  Other contracts 
for international and commercial payloads, as well as for NASA 
Medium ELV-class payloads, will add to this business base -- keeping 
MDC as a viable commerical launch company. 
    However, it should be noted there are risk elements in these 
contracts.  Motorola's Iridium LEO communications constellation has 
not yet received a US Federal Communications Commission license for 
operation in the U.S., nor has Motorola lined up all the financing 
and financial partners for the Iridium venture.  Without these 
approvals or financial backing there will be no Iridium launches.  
But, hopefully, these uncertainties will be settled this year. 
   Similarly, the USAF MLV III program has been the target of 
several Congressional actions which have slowed the production of 
the GPS Block IIR satellites and deleted the funding for the MLV III 
program in favor of the USAF NLS/"Spacelifter" program.  At this 
time, while it appears the MLV III contract will be executed, future 
funding for the MLV III and other USAF commercial launch contracts 
is being reconsidered as part of national space launch strategy 
reviews.  Some opinions expressed from within the Administration and 
Congress propose cancellation of all "ELV upgrade" programs 
(including the MLV programs) in favor of the proposed "Spacelifter" 
program.  Such opinions may have some weight in this year's budget 
deliberations, particularly as DoD funds will be more difficult to 
find in the shrinking US Defense budget.] 
 
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
   The first commercial license to operate a remote sensing 
satellite was approved in early February by the US Department of 
Commerce's Office of Space Commerce.  A license was granted to 
WorldView Imaging Corporation of Oakland, California to build and 
operate a pair of LEO imaging satellites to provide multi-spectral 
images of the Earth. 
   [Commentary:  There has been little data released on this venture 
by WorldView and the DoC, other than the announcement of the 
operating and construction license.  This was reported to be at the 
request of WorldView.  Most industry speculation identifies this new 
venture as a "Star Wars" spinoff, using SDI-type technology to 
provide digital Earth sensing data, and heavily integrated into 
digital GIS databases for remote sensing/GIS users.  Most probable 
customers for this service include exploration geologists, 
agricultural planners, and urban planners.  
   It is noteworthy this is the first commercial venture under the 
1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act.  The Act, as passed last 
November, provides that remote sensing data gathered from private remote 
sensing craft may be sold to users at differing prices.  Prior to 
this act, remote sensing data from all satellites had to be sold to 
all users at the same prices, and private remote sensing ventures 
would have had to sell at the government-set Landsat data prices. 
   There are rumors of several other potential commercial remote 
sensing ventures working their way through the system at different 
stages of development.  I think the large Landsat and SPOT satellite 
systems will provide the majority of the satellite remote sensing 
data market for the next decade or so.  In contrast to these large, 
government-sponsored remote sensing systems, smaller market ventures 
such as WorldView and others can exploit market niches and use 
innovative technology, and I believe, can find profitability on the 
margin.  I predict there may be some very interesting ventures 
appearing in the next year or so.] 
                 
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT" 
   Wall Street investment house Morgan Stanley thinks General 
Dynamic's Space Systems Division could still be a moneymaker, 
despite having failed in the last 3 Atlas launches.  In a recent 
analyst's report Morgan Stanley said "We are more than ever 
convinced that if the company can return the Atlas to its historical 
95%-plus success rate, this will become a highly profitable, cash-
generating unit."  Based upon discussions with GD's corporate 
management, Morgan Stanley projects that if the Atlas problems are 
cleared up the unit could see $70 M in earnings per year by 1995 and 
$100 M per year by 2000.  This is based upon GD's projection of 
capturing about 10 Atlas launches per year on the world market. 
   [Commentary:  Three failures in a row of their launch system has 
hurt General Dynamic's Space Systems Division.  Since GD has 
restructured to only keep a very few profitable core businesses, 
many market pundits have been speculating GD's space business might 
be next to be sold.  The Morgan Stanley report indicates GD's Space 
Systems Division has some potential as a moneymaker, despite current 
problems -- if they can get their act together.  Sales are projected 
to be about $560 M in 1993, which will probably generate a loss of 
about $25 M.  If GD can capture their projected share of the space 
launch market, and if they have managed to clean up the reliability 
of their Atlas launchers, then they could generate healthy profits 
from those sales.  But until they demonstrate the Atlas Centaur 
program is back on track, this division will continue to show 
substantial losses. 
   In response to the sell-off rumors, in my opinion, this operation 
is not a really good candidate for takeover and quick profitability.  
To do such a takeover, the current set corporate and divisional 
management would be replaced with another set from outside the firm.  
In GD SSD's case, to get the division back on track, the management 
team will have to concentrate hard on the technical problems with 
the Atlas Centaur, as well as in selling Atlas services.  This would 
indicate only another firm with experience in rocket launch 
operations could find such talent in-house, and be able to convince 
customers to buy their launch services.  Optimally, the firm would 
have substantial liquid rocket experience, and experience in 
marketing space technology internationally as well.  Candidates for 
this might be TRW, Rockwell, Lockheed, and Martin, and possibly 
McDonnell Douglas and Boeing.  But most of those firms have cash 
flow problems (MDC), have had a substantial business contraction 
(Boeing and MDC), are involved with other launch firms (Lockheed), 
or have taken on substantial debt (Martin).  And coming up with the 
$700-1500 M purchase price for the division is a big chunk of 
change for any company.] 
 
5 - ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
   Arianespace, the operator of the Ariane launch system, is 
projecting a dip in launch demand in the late 1990's.  In early 
February, Arianespace released their annual market survey, which 
detailed their projection of the space transportation market for the 
next decade. 
   Over short run, Arianespace expects to retain their dominant 
position and sustain a majority share of the launch market.  Of 54 
international and commercial launches planned through 1995, Ariane 
holds contracts for 31, General Dynamics' Atlas vehicle holds 14 
contracts, McDonnell Douglas' Delta holds 7, and Great Wall's Long 
March vehicle holds 2 launch contracts. 
   Three-quarters of future launch contracts for which Ariane can 
compete are projected to come from communications satellites with 
the remaining 25% split between weather, Earth observation, and 
scientific satellites.  Most of the future telecommunications demand 
growth is predicted to come from the Asia/Pacific region. 
   Arianespace expects the current market consolidation of 
individual satellite operators into regional or national groups will 
continue, with these groups investing in heavier satellites with 
larger communications payloads carrying more transponders. 
Arianespace predicts the average mass of telecommunications 
satellites should increase by 20 % over today's average level, to 
about 3000 kg in GEO. 
   Demand for commercial launch services is expected to remain 
strong over the next three years, but in the second half of the 
decade, Arianespace predicts demand will decrease.  Arianespace 
bases this prediction upon a matching of satellite transponder 
demand and supply,  particularly as new data compression techniques 
appear to could double or triple transponder capacity using existing 
or near-term transponders. 
   One of the significant possible changes in the market was 
identified as the arrival of new launch vehicles, including Russian 
launch systems.  But Arianespace predicts that in the long term, 
investors purchasing launch services are looking for the best trade 
off between launch service quality and price, and that Russian and 
other new launch services will have to prove out their capabilities 
and service quality, and their market penetration will be minimal. 
   [Commentary:  Ariane releases their market surveys annually, and 
I reported on their prior market survey in a past issue of CSN/STI.  
Comparing the two surveys, there aren't outstanding differences in 
the numbers.   The most notable change is the consideration of new 
data compression techniques, reducing the demand for new physical 
transponders on orbit.
   I note that in contrast to some predictions, demand for space-
based communications transponders appears to be remain strong. While 
fiber optic lines are making substantial inroads into the 
established point-to-point telecommunications markets, growing 
demand for telecommunications services world wide and for point-to-
multipoint broadcast services have prevented a decrease in space 
transponder demand.  Fiberoptic cables provide a higher capability 
service, but only from established point A to established point B. 
To establish a fiberoptic link it is necessary to install cable 
between the points, and while there are improved network solutions, 
installing a large network of distributed fiberoptic links can cost 
millions or billions of dollars.  
   For broadcast services where there is not an existing ground 
network structure, satellites still offer the most cost effective 
solution.  And if new services are required into a new region, it is 
cheaper to install a small satellite link costing only a few tens of 
thousands of dollars and tie into the existing global satellite 
network.  This allows rapid growth of new satellite services, and 
has kept demand high.  The replacement market for fiberoptics is 
growing as well, since as demand grows between the points serviced, 
it becomes cost effective to later install a fiberoptic link to 
handle the increase in traffic. 
   Since the telecommunications and data transfer markets are still 
growing rapidly, satellite market projections remain rosy.  But 
satellites are also getting longer orbital lifetimes.  Current 
generation satellites are now getting guarantees of at 15 years of 
on-orbit service or more, in contrast to 10 years of service from 
last generation's satellites.  This has cut back some of the launch 
demand, as satellite owners are rescheduling replacement satellite 
launches over longer intervals. 
   And as last note; Arianespace didn't flag it this year, but it 
looks like the space transportation market will be rather over-
supplied by existing launch systems in the near term.  The annual 
commercial launch demand is for about 15-20 medium sized satellites 
per year.  From the supply side, Ariane is capable of launching up 
to about a dozen medium sized satellites a year, Delta is capable of 
about 9-12 per year, Atlas is capable of 6-12, Long March 4-8, 
Japan's H-Vehicle 2-4, Russia's Proton capable of 8, and other 
systems such as Zenit and Soyuz another 10-20 medium launches per 
year.  That's a lot of capability for a small market. 
   We can only expect the competition to intensify for commercial 
launches.]

6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT 
   The 9 Feb Pegasus launch by Orbital Sciences Corporation has 
spawned an investigation over an apparent violation of range safety 
rules.  A valid abort order from a NASA range safety officer to halt 
the mission was overridden and the Pegasus was launched in violation 
of range safety rules.  
   In the last few minutes of the Pegasus launch countdown, one of 
two abort command receivers aboard the Pegasus failed.  Such a failure 
typically scrubs a launch,and a NASA range safety officer at 
Wallops Island, VA issued a mission abort order about a minute 
before the scheduled Pegasus launch.  Somehow this command was 
overridden by the OSC launch team or the message was lost in the 
communications channels, and the Pegasus was launched despite the 
valid abort call. 
   Fortunately, the Pegasus functioned as expected, and the abort 
command receiver was not needed.  But this incident did spark an 
investigation since a valid abort order was given under agreed-to 
launch constraint rules, and was not obeyed. 
   Leading the investigation is the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) with support from NASA, OSC, and the Air Force.  This 
investigation marks the first time NTSB has taken the lead on an 
incident involving a space launch.  According to the NTSB, their 
investigation will take about 6 months, and is primarily looking at 
lines of authority, communications links and safety procedures used 
in the launch. 
  [Commentary: This is the first time that the NTSB has led an 
investigation into a space launch.  Their leadership was requested 
by the Department of Commerce's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation, who had licensed the commercial launch.  
   At the time of writing this column, some of the initial 
investigations have been concluded, and some of the results are 
starting to leak out into the trade press.  Apparently, 3 or four 
different communications channels were in use during the test. After 
the abort destruct receiver stopped responding, the NASA test 
director and range controller in the Mission Control room at Wallops 
Island gave abort orders about a minute before the launch.  
According to the mission rules, this should have stopped the launch. 
Somehow, the OSC test conductor ordered the abort reversed, and the 
NASA communicator on the net relayed that order to the B-52 carrying 
the Pegasus at about 22 seconds before launch.  Differing 
explainations of exactly how this happened are proposed -- with the 
best set being that clear lines of communications and clear 
definition of the responsibilities of the mission control team, and 
understanding of the mission rules were not established before the 
launch.  
   As we see more and more commercial launches, more of these 
procedural issues are going to crop up and will have to be resolved.   
This case is interesting because it is the first time the NTSB has 
been called in to investigate a commercial launch problem (as they 
do with commercial aircraft problems).  
   I think this problem will turn out to be primarily problems with 
procedures and communications, and will be cleared up with issuance 
of guidelines on how launch communications should be set up and how 
specific lines of authority should be delineated.] 

7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
   Tsniimach Enterprise in Russia announced it is marketing a new 
small space launch system, based upon converted ICBM components.  
Two versions of the launcher are being marketed: the "Aerokosmos" 
winged vehicle launched like the OSC Pegasus, and the "Severkosmos", 
launched from a mobile ground transporter.  The Aerokosmos is 
projected to deliver 900 kg to a 200 km circular orbit or 580 kg to 
an 800 km circular orbit, and the Severkosmos to be capable of 430 
kg to 200 km orbits and 225 kg to 800 km.  Also proposed to be used 
with these launch systems is a LEO data relay system called 
'Sineva'.  Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection of 
spacecraft and which has participated in the development of the 
Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 
   [Commentary: There's very little released information on this new 
venture.  My suspicion is it is another Russian enterprise looking 
for hard currency and trying to capitalize upon their in-house 
knowledge of ex-Soviet launch systems.  It adds to the list of numerous 
commercial space startups announced from the ex-Soviet Union. 
   This one's a little different in that they are offering variants 
of ex-Soviet ICBMs, but I can't identify any key customers being 
targeted or substantial financial backing.]

8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
   In late January, Georgia Tech Research Institute released the 
results of a preliminary study on the feasibility of a commercial 
rocket launching site in Camden County, Georgia at the old Kingsland 
Missile Test Launching Site on the Atlantic coast.  The preliminary 
study recommended the site not be pursued as a commercial launch 
site, stating reopening the site was not feasible due to projected 
low investment returns, plus environmental and other geographic 
considerations.  However, the report did say the site might be ideal 
for other aerospace uses, and recommended other potential uses. 
   [Commentary:  This should put the nails in the coffin of the 
Kingsland Commercial Launch Site.  While other sites are still 
proceeding with commercial launch site development plans, Kingsland 
found without a key customer to act as anchor tenant, and if 
substantial infrastructure had to be put in, then the expected 
returns were too low to justify the cost of development.  
   This might point out some key discriminators in judging the 
feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include:
  - Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage 
sufficient to recover setup costs?
  - Is there a market advantage of using the site?
  - Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site?
  - Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the 
investment?  
   Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
   In one of his last official acts, former President Bush 
authorized space technology transfer for several joint space 
ventures between US and other firms.  One of these was a proposed 
use of US technology by Spain to build a small booster.  With that 
regulatory impediment removed, the 3-stage Capricornia launch 
vehicle will start development later this year, planning for a first 
launch in the 1995/96 time period.  The Capricornia is described as 
a small 3-stage all solid booster designed to put 250-500 Kg into 
LEO.  Several launch sites are being examined for the system, 
including 2 on the Iberian peninsula and 1 on the Canary Islands.  
Originated by INTA in Spain, the project reports it has $ 30 M in 
development funding, and will use technology from Argentina's Condor 
launch vehicle as well as from the US. 
   [Commentary:  Several firms have identified a market opportunity 
in providing a small launcher for the European market.  Small 
payloads from European firms or organizations currently use either 
Ariane piggyback launches or the US/Italian Scout launcher.  
However, Ariane piggyback opportunities are limited, and the Scout 
program is being phased out (accompanied by some disarray in the 
Italian government and space industry regarding any follow-on 
system).  
   This has left an apparent niche for a new European small launch 
system.  Surprisingly enough, ESA has not supported development of 
such a system within the current space funding structure.  Studies 
have been performed by British Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Deutsche 
Aerospace, and Italian organizations, but with the exception of the 
Swedish/PacAstro system (reported below), I have not been able to 
find any other European development work with even a rumor of 
funding for hardware. 
   Also of interest is the linking of the Capricornia to the 
Argentinian Condor launcher.  There have been some interesting 
rumors surfacing out of Argentina over the past year about a space 
launcher/IRBM program funded under the military junta which ruled 
the country in the 1970's and early 1980's. 
   What is known is in Feb 1992, the Argentinian Air Force formally 
transferred control of the Condor 2 missile program to the new 
civilian Argentinian national space agency (Comison Nacional de 
Atividades Espaciales - CNAE).  The Condor 2 program was described 
as originating in 1983, expanding upon the smaller Condor 1 rocket 
program in collaboration with Egypt and with support of German 
firms.  The Condor 2 was also reportedly funded indirectly by Iraq 
in the mid-1980's.  Fairly large solid rocket motors were built and 
tested, but Argentinan development of a suitable guidance package 
lagged that of the propulsion system. 
   It should be noted CNAE is planning to launch its first 
scientific satellite in late 1994.  The US$ 9 M, 181 Kg, SAC-B 
satellite will study the Earth's upper atmosphere and includes 
cooperative experiments from Italy and the US. No launch vehicle has 
yet been selected, but OSC's Pegasus and the Russian Burlak Air 
launched rocket are reported to be strong contenders for this 
contract.] 

10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
   PacAstro, a small launch firm in Herndon, Virginia announced in 
late February it had received a $6 M launch reservation contract 
from the Swedish Space Corp to launch a satellite on PacAstro's PA-2 
launch vehicle.   This will be performed as part of the Polar 
Satellite Service (PSS), a joint Norwegian Space Center/ Swedish 
Space Corp. program to upgrade the Andoya Rocket Range in Norway and 
offering small satellite launches into the polar regions.  According 
to PacAstro, PSS is also performing an $8 M upgrade of the Andoya 
launch facilities, including a new integration facility and a fully-
enclosed vertical assembly building for small launch vehicles like 
the PacAstro PA-2.  PacAstro has been chosen as "the main 
alternative rocket supplier" for the small satellite launch service 
to be offered by PSS from Andoya.  The date of the launch of the 
Swedish satellite was not specified. 
   [Commentary:  PacAstro has been trying to line up customers and 
funding for their launch vehicle for some time now.  The PA-2 is a 
small, two stage rocket fueled by RP-1 and Liquid Oxygen.  From 
PacAstro's literature, the engines designed for the PA-series 
rockets are built of "off the shelf" components based upon the Lunar 
MOdule Descent Engines built by TRW, and are capable of putting a 
225 Kg satellite into a 750 km circular polar orbit.  
   PacAstro is trying to arrange construction financing for its 
first three PA-2 vehicles, with a first launch planned for 1995, and 
2 orbital launches planned for 1996.  My records show PacAstro hired 
TRW to provide marketing support and systems design,  with primary 
engineering to be done by AeroAstro, a small satellite builder 
closely associated with PacAstro (headquartered in the same 
building).  The Swedish Space Corporation would supply engineering, 
launch operations, vehicle subsystems, and marketing support. 
Sumitomo Corp. of Tokyo, is a first round investor and sits on the 
board of directors.  
   PacAstro has gotten a first round financial package of at least 
$550 K  (Some sources place this of high as $1 M), but has been 
searching for about a year for the additional $20-30 M needed to 
design, build and launch their first set of vehicles. 
   The launch reservation from SSC can possibly be used to help 
bring some investors on board, but by my estimate, they will need 
much more than the single $6 M sale to put their venture into real 
hardware.] 

11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
    In early March, it was reported a joint satellite communications 
venture between a Taiwanese and mainland Chinese was in the works.  
As reported in the Taipei press, China Development Corp. (CDC), 
headquartered in Taiwam and with links to the ruling Nationalist 
Party, is planning to set up a joint venture in Hong Kong with China 
Great Wall Industry Corp. with the objective of launching a regional 
communications satellite. CDC would cover about 10% of the satellite 
system cost (US $10 M) in exchange for rights to 10% of the 
satellite's communications channels.  
   [Commentary:  This announcement came close on the heels of the 
release of Taiwanese plans for space development (released in mid 
January).   In those plans, the National Space Program Office of 
Taiwan will launch 3 satellites, starting with ROCSAT-1, a 400 Kg 
scientific spacecraft, planned for launch in 1997.  Two additional 
satellites are planned, both communications satellites.   TRW has 
been helping Taiwan plan this program, budgeted at T$13.6 B (US $530 
M) through 2006.  
   I haven't been able to establish any relationship between this 
venture and those of the NSPOT, but there might be a connection.  
While Taiwan has the financing to pursue several ventures, the 
current Taiwanese telecommunications market might not support two 
separate sastellite ventures. 
   The reported name for the Tiawanese/Chinese system is "Asiasat-
2", but I don't thinks this has any relationship with the existing 
Hong Kong-based "Asiasat" program involving Chinese, Hong Kong, and 
other Asian investors, other than using it as an organizational 
model.  There are some obvious advantages to pursuing such a joing 
venture -- it could provide excellent first-hand experience to 
Taiwan for a very low cost, which then can be used in later 
satellite ventures.  But there are internal political issues between 
Taiwanese and Chinese ventures, but putting any joint venture 
through a  Hong Kong intermediary corporation might allow it to 
proceed. 
   In any case, the East Asian satellite market is lighting up with 
substantially growth projected in space services and revenues.  This 
is just another indicator to add to the list.] 

12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
   South Korea's Trade, Industry and Resources Ministry recently 
announced plans to invest US$22 B in research and development and 
another US$17 B into manufacturing and research facilities for 
advanced aerospace technologies.  Space technologies have been 
specifically targeted as part of this program, beginning with 
manufacture and launch of an advanced multi-purpose satellite by 
1997.  The objective of this investment is to raise South Korea's 
aerospace technology to the level of the world's top 10 countries by 
2000.                                 
   [Commentary: South Korea has been quietly working to develop its 
national aerospace industry, specifically including space 
activities. I'm noting this as a flag that potential new players are 
coming into the commercial space market. 
   As part of their national effort, 2 national telecommunications 
satellites for Korea Telecom will be launched in April and Oct 1995 
on Delta. Designated Koreasat 1 and 2, the platforms will provide 
television and telephone service throughout the Korean Peninsula, 
southwestern Japan and portions of China bordering North Korea. 
   South Korea launched its first small satellite piggyback on 
Ariane in Aug 1992, called Uribyol-1 (Our Star) and costing about US 
$8.8 M.  Uribyol-2 is planned for piggyback launch in October of 
this year, again on Ariane, and will be entirely "made in Korea."  
Uribyol-3, projected for a 1995 launch, will be an environment-
monitoring micro-satellite. 
   This satellite may be the precursor to a series of small Earth 
observation satellites,  The KEOS (Korean Earth Observation System) 
project, which has been submitted for approval to the South Korean 
government, would use two or three 300-kg spacecraft equipped with 
optical and microwave sensors.
   South Korean press reports claim there is also a parallel 
military effort to establish the capabilities for building and 
launching small military satellites by 2001.  Supposedly a 
government panel had been established to oversee such an effort, 
funded at US $ 500 M between 1993 and 2001, in anticipation of an  
expected pullout of U.S. intelligence-gathering systems from the 
Korean peninsula.       
   In conjunction with all of these reported efforts, South Korean 
is also pursuing production work either as off-sets to existing 
aerospace technology contracts (for example, McDonnell Douglas is 
offsetting production of some Delta parts to South Korean firms as 
part of the Koreasat launch contracts), or for production of 
consumer space items (among other products, South Korea exports 
satellite receiver television setups to Japan, and Samsung has 
announced teaming for production of OSC's Orbcomm user terminals.).  
   This looks like a very aggressive push into space technologies.  
Considering that East Asia is currently the fastest growing sector 
for commercial space services (primarily for telecommunications), a 
South Korean push into space technologies may change the composition 
of commercial space market there over the next decade.] 

13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
   As announced in the last CSN/STI, each issue will give the 
results of stock indexes and portfolios regarding space stocks and 
investments.  The table below summarizes results to the end of 
March.  The Space Technology Index did quite a bit better than the 
market as a whole, as represented by the S&P 500 index.  Since 90+% 
of the values included in the index are US firms, this represents a 
general increase in the market value of space-related firms.  The 
increase in the first quarter is more than in all of 1992 -- which 
is a very promising sign, although future months may reverse this 
trend. The Commercial Space Technology Index has also done quite 
well, but the Pure Play portfolio -- consisting of stocks of firms 
which are pure plays in space technologies -- has also surpassed its 
results in all of 1993.  We'll keep an eye on these ....

   INDEX RESULTS THROUGH MARCH
                           Beginning  Beginning      1 Jan 93 to
                           1992       1993           31 Mar 1993
                           -------    --------       --------
   S&P 500                 416        436  (+4.7%)   452  (+3.7%)
   Space Tech Index        267        304 (+13.6%)   373 (+22.7%)
   Comm'l Space Tech Index 167        194 (+16.3%)   222 (+14.2%)
   Space Tech Pure Plays   147        169 (+15.4%)   197 (+16.2%)


FINAL NOTES - 
    What?  This column's already full?  And I still have bunches of 
commercial space developments to report on.  As I said at the start 
of this, column there's been a lot of interesting happenings - but 
I'll have to put them into the next issue.  
   Looking ahead, I've got several articles in the works on new 
happenings with Iridium and the LEO communications satellite market, 
more news on international launchers appearing (and disappearing) on 
the market, new international commercial space ventures,  and other 
interesting developments. 
   And as always, I hope you folks find this stuff useful and 
interesting -- Any and all comments are welcome. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor  
"Felicitas multos habet amicos"             P.O. Box 2452 
                                        Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61208
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

   Two developments have brought these type of activities back to
the forefront in 1993.  First, in February, the Russians deployed a
20-m reflector from a Progress vehicle after it had departed from
the Mir Space Station.  While this "Banner" reflector was blank,
NPO Energia was very active in reporting that future  Banner
reflectors will be available to advertisers, who could use a space-
based video of their logo or ad printed on the Banner in a TV
commercial, as filmed from the Mir.
   The second development, has been that Space Marketing Inc, the
same company responsible for merchandising space on the Conestoga
booster and COMET spacecraft, is now pushing the "Environmental
Billboard".  As laid out by SMI Chief Engineer Dr Ron Humble of the
University of Colorado Space Laboratory and Preston Carter of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the "Environmental
Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
it will release ozone-building components that will literally
replenish the ozone layer." The remaining spacecraft will monitor
the atmosphere for another year before it, too, re-enters and burns
up and "adds to the ozone supply."
   This would not be a cheap advertisement, costing at least several
millions of dollars (exact costs were not available).  But SMI
estimates that market exposure would be 3-5X that of the people who
watched the SuperBowl, where a 30-second advertising 'unit' cost
$600,000.  Since SMI is located in Atlanta, Georgia, it is being
promoted as being available in time for the opening of the 1996
Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
  
But back to Brian's questions:
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
  
    See above. As for serious -- if they can get $15-20 M or so (my
estimate of $5-10 for development costs and a flight unit, plus
$10-15 M for a launch), then it's probably real.  They are claiming to
tailor the orbit to overfly specific locations at specific times for
optimum advertising impact so they probably can't piggy back upon
someone else's planned launch and will have to buy a dedicated
launch.  That's a $10-15 M cost they need to raise, right there.
    And there will probably be some legal challenges to this as
well.  Note there is one potential legal challenge to SMI on the use
of launch vehicle advertising already.  While I don't think the
legal challenges would win out (and yes, I am an amateur astronomer,
and no, I don't really like the idea of this additional light
pollution, but I know of no prohibition of it...),  the legal
challenges and court fights would probably remove any positive
aspects of the advertising.  I can imagine several ways to make the
advertisers look like louts for doing this -- which would change
positive market exposure to negative market exposure, and negate the
space advertising advantage.  (Would you spend $15 M to look like an
idiot?)
   (And light pollution might not be too bad -- if it's in a low
enough orbit, and it relies upon reflected light only, it would
only be visible for a short time just after local dusk and before
dawn.  For maximum market exposure, you want to have it visible just
after dusk --minimizing impact on astronomy, since that's the time
of worse seeing due to day/night thermal turbulence.  It might still
be a problem, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate this...)
    As for having real funding -- none that I can identify.  There
were about 60 expressions of interest made on the Conestoga
advertising opportunity, but that included curious folks and was for
only a $500,000 commitment.  I haven't heard of any serious funding
for this, but I'm sure they are shopping the venture around looking
for some money in order to flesh out the concept some more.  But I
am confident there are no firm or paying customers at this time.
  
   And if anybody wants to cross-post this to sci.astro, please be
my guest.  I don't have posting privileges to that area (or at least
I don't THINK I do...).
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61209
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (1 of 2)

Brian Yamauchi asks: [Regarding orbital billboards...]
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
  
    Well, I had been collecting data for next edition of the
Commercial Space News/Space Technology Investor... To summarize:
  
SPACE ADVERTISING
    First, advertising on space vehicles is not new -- it is very
common practice to put the cooperating organization's logos on the
space launch vehicle.  For example, the latest GPS launcher had the
(very prominent) logos on its side of
   - McDonnell Douglas (the Delta launcher)
   - Rockwell International (who built the GPS satellite)
   - USAF (who paid for the satellite and launch), and
   - the GPS/Navstar program office
   This has not been considered "paid advertising" but rather
"public relations", since the restrictions have been such that only
organizations involved in the launch could put their logos on the
side, and there was no money exchanged for this.  [However, putting
a 10' high logo on the side of the launch vehicle facing the cameras
is "advertising" as much as it is "public relations", in my
opinion.]  [And by the way, I note that the DC-X test vehicle has
rather prominent McDonnell-Douglas and SDIO logos on the side...]
   There have been several studies looking at the revenue potentials
for use of space vehicles for advertising, or placing large
advertising signs in orbit.  On the shuttle, for example, I know of
several serious studies in the early and mid 1980's which looked at
putting logos on the external tank, or on the sides of the payload
bay.  These ventures would be different than "public relations", in
that the logos or displays would not be restricted to the firms
participating on that flight, and would involve payment of sums for
the right to fly the logos in a prominent organization.  (For
example, painting the ET to look like a Pepsi can, or putting a
Disneyworld logo on the inside of the payload bay where the cameras
would scan past it.)
  
ADVERTS ON LAUNCH VEHICLES
   The first paid advertising was done on a Soviet launcher in about
1990, when several non-involved foreign organizations were allowed
to pay to put their logos on a Proton launch.  (An Italian shoe
company was one of the first advertisers, I remember.)  Similarly,
Soviet cosmonauts on Mir made a paid advertisement for the last
Olympic games, and have gleefully shown banners and other items from
participating firms and organizations.  Mars candy bars, for
example, got a plug from orbit as a sponsor of the launch of the
British visiting cosmonaut to Mir.
   Now US firms are starting to put paid advertisements on launch
vehicles.  The upcoming Conestoga launch (in June) putting the COMET
recoverable payload capsule into orbit will have paid advertisements
on the side, for Arnold Schwarzenegger's upcoming movie "The Last
Action Hero".  Besides the usual logos of the participating
organizations, Columbia pictures has paid $500,000 to put ads on the
main fuselage of the mission's Conestoga rocket, its booster
rockets, and on the COMET payload, which will orbit the Earth for
one month.  A concept for this advertising display was published in
Space News magazine a couple of months ago.
   (As a side note: Robert Lorsch, an advertising executive, is
talking about suing NASA.  He charges NASA with appropriating an idea he
created with the space agency in 1981 to form corporate advertising
sponsorships on NASA spacecraft as a way to get funding for the
space program.  Lorsch contends that in selling advertising space on
the upcoming COMET, NASA violated an agreement that it "would not use
his idea without him being the exclusive representative for NASA and
receiving compensation."   This is being disputed, since the launch
is a "commercial launch" and NASA is receiving none of the
advertising revenues, but the funding for the COMET program is
coming from NASA.)
  
ORBITAL "BILLBOARDS"
   Orbital "billboards" have been the staple of science fiction for
some time.  Arthur C. Clarke wrote about one example, and Robert
Heinlein described another in "The Man Who Sold the Moon".  Several
different potential projects have been developed, although none have
been implemented, but the most real prior to 1993 being the "Eiffel
II" project, which would have placed a large inflatable sculpture in
orbit to celebrate the French Republic's Bi-centennial.
                                                (cont)

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61210
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?

I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere
unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only
about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe --
and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61211
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: $1bil space race ideas/moon base on the cheap.

That is an idea.. The most efficient moon habitat.. 

also the idea of how to get the people off the moon once the prize was won..

Also the idea of how to rescue someone who is "dying" on the moon.

Maybe have a area where they can all "see" each other, and can help each other
if something happens.. 

I liek the idea of one prize for the first moon landing and return, by a
non-governmental body..

Also the idea of then having a moon habitat race.. 

I know we need to do somthing to get people involved..

Eccentric millionaire/billionaire would be nice.. We see how old Ross feels
about it.. After all it would be a great promotional thing and a way to show he
does care about commericalization and the people.. Will try to broach the
subject to him.. 

Moonbase on the cheap is a good idea.. NASA and friends seem to take to much
time and give us to expensive stuff that of late does not work (hubble and
such). Basically what is the difference between a $1mil peice of junk and a
multi $1mil piece of junk.. I know junk..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61212
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: 30826

I like option C of the new space station design.. 
It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..

Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...

Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
it..

Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to.. 

Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
lifter, I think).
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61213
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)

In article <1rbp6q$oai@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
>>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
>>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.
> 
> 
> Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,  
> 
> and besides.
> 
> Maybe she can't act:-)
> 
> pat
> 

Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..

Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost.. 

Heh of late, they way they have been having shuttle problems in the media,
anything can happen.. 

Imagine a Astronaut/Crew member to find themselves in the 24th Century as the
object of interest of an alien civilization, maybe rescued or helped by the ST
Enterprise...  I know Vegr and such was okay, but this could be better..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61214
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)

In article <1993Apr25.154449.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|
|Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
|lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..
|
|Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
>survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost.. 


Of course that asumes the mission was able to launch :-)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61215
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

     What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution,
crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.

   Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
   quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

   Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

Now, in the good old days before GRO data, it was thought the
gamma bursters were neutron stars in the galaxy, it was expected that
GRO would confirm this by either showing they were a local population
(within a few hundred light years) or that they were in the galactic
halo. (Mechanism was not known but several plausible ones existed)
(also to be fair it was noted that the _brightest_ burster was
probably in the LMC, suggesting theorists might be wrong back then...)
	As the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy a halo
population should show anisotropy (a local disk population is
ruled out completely at this stage) - to avoid the anisotropy you
have to push the halo out, the energy then gets large, the mechanism
of getting NS out that far becomes questionable, and we should start
to see for example the Andromeda's bursters.
	The data is consistent with either a Oort cloud distribution
(but only just) - but no one can think of a plausible source with
the right spectrum. Or, it can be a cosmological distances (hence
isotropy) and the edge is "the edge of the Universe" ;-)
If at cosmological distances you need very high energy (to detect)
and a very compact source (for spectrum), ergo a neutron star
colliding with another neutron star or black hole. Even then getting
the spectrum is very hard, but conceivable.

	If we know anything about physics at that level,
the bursters are not due to quantum black holes or cosmic
strings, wrong spectrum for one thing.

The situation is further complicated by recent claims that
there are two classes of sources ;-)  [in the colliding NS
they'd actually probably fit relatively easily into the
NS-NS and NS-BH collision scenarios respectively]

   my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
   hyperspace :-)

   but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
   are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
   if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

If you can think of one, remember to invite me to Stockholm...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61216
From: tom@igc.apc.org
Subject: computer cult


From: <tom>
Subject: computer cult

From scott Fri Apr 23 16:31:21 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.77 )
	id AA16121; Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Message-Id: <9304232331.AA16121@igc.apc.org>
From: Scott Weikart <scott>
Sender: scott
To: cdplist
Subject: Next stand-off?
Status: R

Redwood City, CA (API) -- A tense stand-off entered its third week
today as authorities reported no progress in negotiations with
charismatic cult leader Steve Jobs.

Negotiators are uncertain of the situation inside the compound, but
some reports suggest that half of the hundreds of followers inside
have been terminated.  Others claim to be staying of their own free
will, but Jobs' persuasive manner makes this hard to confirm.

In conversations with authorities, Jobs has given conflicting
information on how heavily prepared the group is for war with the
industry.  At times, he has claimed to "have hardware which will blow
anything else away", while more recently he claims they have stopped
manufacturing their own.

Agents from the ATF (Apple-Taligent Forces) believe that the group is
equipped with serious hardware, including 486-caliber pieces and
possibly Canon equipment.

The siege has attracted a variety of spectators, from the curious to
other cultists.  Some have offered to intercede in negotiations,
including a young man who will identify himself only as "Bill" and
claims to be the "MS-iah".

Former members of the cult, some only recently deprogrammed, speak
hesitantly of their former lives, including being forced to work
20-hour days, and subsisting on Jolt and Twinkies.  There were
frequent lectures in which they were indoctrinated into a theory of
"interpersonal computing" which rejects traditional roles.

Late-night vigils on Chesapeake Drive are taking their toll on
federal marshals.  Loud rock and roll, mostly Talking Heads, blares
throughout the night.  Some fear that Jobs will fulfill his own
apocalyptic prophecies, a worry reinforced when the loudspeakers
carry Jobs' own speeches -- typically beginning with a chilling "I
want to welcome you to the 'Next World' ".

- - -- 
Roland J. Schemers III              |            Networking Systems
Systems Programmer                  |            G16 Redwood Hall (415) 723-6740
Distributed Computing Group         |            Stanford, CA 94305-4122
Stanford University                 |            schemers@Slapshot.Stanford.EDU



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61217
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Order MOORE's book to restore Great Telescope

Several people have enquired about the availability of the book about the
Great 72" reflector built at Birr Castle, Ireland in 1845 which remained the
largest in the world until the the start of the 20th century.

"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" was written by Patrick Moore who now sits on
the committee which is going to restore the telescope. (The remains are on
public display all year round - the massive support walls, the 60 foot long
tube, and other bits and pieces). This book is the definitivie history of
how one man, the Third Earl of Rosse, pulled off the most impressive
technical achievement, perhaps ever, in the history of the telescope, and
the discoveries made with the instrument.

Patrick Moore is donating all proceeds from the book's sale to help restore
the telescope. Astronomy Ireland is making the book available world wide by
mail order. It's a fascinating read and by ordering a copy you bring the day
when we can all look through it once again that little bit nearer.

=====ORDERING INFORMATION=====
"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" Dr. Patrick Moore, xii, 90pp, 208mm x 145mm.
Price:
U.S.: US$4.95 + US$2.95 post & packing (add $3.50 airmail)
U.K. (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 1.50 post & packing
EUROPE (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 2.00 post and packing
REST OF WORLD: as per U.S. but funds payable in US$ only.

PAYMENT:
Make all payments to "Astronomy Ireland".
CREDIT CARD: MASTERCARD/VISA/EUROCARD/ACCESS accepted by email or snail
mail: give card number, name & address, expiration date, and total amount.
Payments otherwise must be by money order or bank draft.
Send to our permanent address: P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.

You can also subscribe to "Astronomy & Space" at the same time. See below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61218
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: Potential World-Bearing Stars?

In article <C5Dz7C.J0E@visix.com> dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist) writes:


   I'm on a fact-finding mission, trying to find out if there exists a list of
   potentially world-bearing stars within 100 light years of the Sun...
   Is anyone currently working on this sort of thing?  Thanks...

   Dan
   -- 

In principle, any star resembling the Sun (mass, luminosity) might have planets
located in a suitable orbit. There several within 100 ly of the sun. They are
single stars, for double or multiple systems might be troublesome. There's a
list located at ames.arc.nasa.gov somewhere in pub/SPACE. I think it is called
stars.dat. By the way, what kind of project, if I may know?

Rui
-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61219
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.


George.

	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.   If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61220
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>the "Environmental
>Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
>804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
>deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
>   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
>maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
>sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
>delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
>SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
>exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
>atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
>it will release ozone-building components that will literally
>replenish the ozone layer."
 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

 Can we assume that this guy studied advertising and not chemistry?  Granted 
it probably a great advertising gimic, but it doesn't sound at all practical.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61221
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Station Redesign (30826) Option C

In article <1993Apr25.151108.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> I like option C of the new space station design.. 
> It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..
> 
> Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...
> 
> Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
> it..
> 
> Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to.. 
> 
> Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
> lifter, I think).
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
> 
> 
> 
> 


This is a report, I got the subject messed up..

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61222
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: NASA Special Publications for Voyager Mission?

I have two books, both NASA Special Publications, on the Voyager 
Missions. One is titled "Voyages to Jupiter" the other "Voyage to Saturn" 
These were excellent books put together after the encounters with each 
planet. 

The question is: Did NASA ever put together a similar book for either the 
Uranus encounter or Neptune? If so, what SP number is it and where can it 
be obtained? If not, why didn't they?

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61223
From: bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Uwe Bonnes)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times


In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) asked:
|> 
|> Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
|> to compute sunrise and sunset times.
|> 
|> I would appreciate any advice.
|> 
|> Joe Wetstein
|> jpw@coe.drexel.edu

To compute this, and many other astronomical things, go and get (x)ephem written
by Elwood C. Downey. It is e.g. on export.lcs.mit.edu

Uwe Bonnes  bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61226
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
 Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
here ..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61227
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado)
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org

 > From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
 >
 > In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
 > daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:
 > > |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration
 > confernce> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the
 > auspices of AIAA.
 >
 > Thanks for typing that in, Steven.
 >
 > I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes
 > and ears there...

I plan to go.  It's about 30 minutes away from my home.
I can report on some of it (from my perspective ...)
Anyone else on sci.space going to be there?  If so, send me
netmail.  Maybe we can plan to cross paths briefly...
I'll maintain a list of who's going.

mark.prado@permanet.org

 * Origin: Just send it to bill.clinton@permanet.org
(1:109/349.2)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61228
From: HoffmanE@space1.spacenet.jhuapl.edu (Hoffman, Eric J.)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites

In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
(Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept."
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?


     TRIAD, the first drag-free satellite, was designed and built by the 
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and launched 2 Sept 1972.  The 
satellite was in three sections separated by two booms.  The central section 
housed the DISCOS Disturbance Compensation System, which consisted of a proof 
mass of special non-magnetic alloy housed within a spherical cavity.  The 
proof mass flew a true gravitational orbit, free from drag and radiation 
pressure.  Teflon microthrusters kept the body of the satellite centered 
around the proof mass, thereby flying the entire satellite drag free.

     TRIAD was one of the APL-designed Navy Navigation Satellites.  The 
2nd-generation operational navigation satellites flying today (NOVA) use a 
single-axis version of DISCOS.  TRIAD was also the sixth APL satellite to be 
powered by an RTG (APL flew the first nuclear power supply in space, in 1961).

     Further info on TRIAD, DISCOS, etc. can be found in "Spacecraft Design 
Innovations in the APL Space Department," Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 
Vol. 13, No. 1 (1992).

                                                      --Eric Hoffman








Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61229
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
looked into possible problems with the detectors?

That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
things?

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61230
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

As for SF and advertising in space. There is a romantic episode
in Mead's "The Big Ball of Wax" where the lovers are watching 
the constellation Pepsi Cola rising over the horizon and noting
the some 'stars' had slipped cause the Teamsters were on strike.

This was the inspiration for my article on orbiting a formation
of space mirrors published in Spaceflight in 1986. As the reviews
said: this seems technically feasible, and could be commercially viable
but is it aesthetically desirable?  These days the only aesthetics
that count are the ones you can count!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61231
From: pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
> looked into possible problems with the detectors?

> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
> things?

> Graydon

That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses
and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be-
fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the
only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot
locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With
two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector
to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors,
one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these
locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the 
sky), voila, you have an error box.

BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.

You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe
(in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen
in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be
a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss
neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.

Peter
peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61232
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes:
>In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes:
>> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
>>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.
>
>Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
>from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra
>Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."
>
>I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme
>care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in
>the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not
>surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
>everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

Level 5 refers to the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute's
Capability Maturity Model.  This model rates software development
org's from1-5.  with 1 being Chaotic and 5 being Optimizing.  DoD is
beginning to use this rating system as a discriminator in contracts.  I
have more data on thifrom 1 page to 1000.  I have a 20-30 page
presentation that summarizes it wethat I could FAX to you if you're
interested...
Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM

(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61233
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.


If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
rays?

How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
megaparsec^2 is OK.


--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61234
From: kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA])
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote:
: I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
: one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
: Crystal City.  [...]

I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
You can retrieve them from:
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif

The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing
charts.

These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days,
so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took
me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
but it's out of space.

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

     "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
     the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61235
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: 
 > 
 > 
 > SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
 > that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.
 >  

I haven't heard any hint of a re-boost, or that any is needed.

 > 
 > why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
 > thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
 > cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   

Nasty, dirty combustion products!  People have gone to monumental efforts to
keep HST clean.  We certainly aren't going to bolt any thrusters to it.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61236
From: n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?


I can tell you that when AMSAT launched some birds along a Spot satellite
(French), that during installation of some instruments on Spot 2, there
heavily armed legionaires who had a `take no prisoners' look on there faces.
Spot satellites are completely capable of doing some very good on orbit
surveillance.

BMc
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61237
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:

>In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
> Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
>here ..
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.

Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same 
reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.

Pat writes:
George.

	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.

I say: 
	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
	discrimination, and violence against others of different
	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.

Pat says:
If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

I say:
What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
and unspoiled things, including the night sky.

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferish Observatory           <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61238
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>....
>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
> 
>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not
_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't
remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon, when
one of them drops a fob watch.  They then speculate about the reaction
of the natives to finding such a thing, dropped straight down from heaven.
But the notion is not pursued further than that.

-Scott
--------------------                          New .sig under construction
Scott I. Chase                                     Please be patient
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                                   Thank you 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61239
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: I want that Billion

In article <C5x86o.8p4@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1r6rn3INNn96@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>>of a private Titan pad? 
>
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
>no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
>lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
>build something HLV-sized anyway.
>
>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
>would have far better cost-effectiveness.

Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest
wins. 

Ohhh, you want to put in FINE PRINT which says "Thou shall do wonderous R&D
rather than use off-the-shelf hardware"? Sorry, didn't see that in my copy.
Most of the Pournellesque proposals run along the lines of <some dollar
amount> reward for <some simple goal>.  

You go ahead and do your development, I'll buy off the shelf at higher cost (or
even Russian; but I also assume that there'd be some "Buy US" provos in there)
and be camped out in the Moon while you are launching and assembling little
itty-bitty payloads in LEO with your laser or gas gun.  And working out the
bugs of assembly & integration in LEO. 

Oh, hey, could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I
wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...




    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61240
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>Voyager  has the unusual  luck to be on a stable trajectory out of the
>solar system.   All it's doing is collecting  fields  data,  and routinely
>squirting it down.  One of the mariners is also in stable
>solar orbit,  and still providing similiar  solar data.  

There are no Mariner craft from which we are still receiving data.  I believe
you are referring to one or more of Pioneers 6 through 9 (launched from
December 1965 through November 1968), which were put into solar orbits to study
interplanetary space.  I recall reading that at least one of them was still
functioning 25 years after launch.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61241
From: PPORTH@hq.nasa.gov ("Tricia Porth (202")
Subject: Remote Sensing Data

=================================================================
I am posting this for someone else.  Please respond to the 
address listed below.  Please also excuse the duplication as this 
message has been crossposted.  Thanks!
=================================================================
 
 
      REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES 
                             VIA THE INTERNET
 
NASA is planning to expand the domain of users of its Earth and space science
data.  This effort will:
 
  o   Use the evolving infrastructure of the U.S. Global Change Research 
      Program including the Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE) and the Earth 
      Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Programs.
 
  o   Use the Internet, particularly the High Performance Computing and 
      Communications Program's NREN (National Research and Education 
      Network), as a means of providing access to and distribution of 
      science data and images and value added products.
 
  o   Provide broad access to and utilization of remotely sensed images in 
      cooperation with other agencies (especially NOAA, EPA, DOE, DEd, 
      DOI/USGS, and USDA). 
 
  o   Support remote sensing image and data users and development 
      communities. 
 
The user and development communities to be included (but not limited to) as
part of this effort are educators, commercial application developers (e.g., 
television weather forecasters), librarians, publishers, agriculture 
specialists, transportation, forestry, state and local government planners, and
aqua business.
 
This program will be initiated in 1994.  Your assistance is requested to 
identify potential applications of remote sensing images and data.  We would 
like your ideas for potential application areas to assist with development of
the Implementation Plan.
 
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.  
 
We are seeking your ideas in these areas: 
 
  (1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images; 
 
  (2)  Potential noncommercial use of remote sensing data and images in 
       education (especially levels K-12) and other noncommercial areas;
 
  (3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data more 
       accessible;
 
  (4)  Additional points of contacts for ideas; and 
 
  (5)  Addresses and names  from whom to request proposals. 
 
For your convenience, a standard format for responses is included below.  Feel
free to amend it as necessary.  Either e-mail or fax your responses to us by
May 5, 1993.
 
E-MAIL:   On Internet "rsdwg@orion.ossa.hq.nasa.gov"  ASCII  - No binary 
attachments please
 
FAX:   Ernie Lucier, c/o RSDWG, NASA HQ, FAX 202-358-3098
 
Survey responses in the following formats may also be placed in the FTP 
directory ~ftp/pub/RSDWG on orion.nasa.gov.  Please indicate the format. 
Acceptable formats are: Word for Windows 2.X, Macintosh Word 4.X and 5.X, and 
RTF.  
 
 
 
----------------------------RESPONSE FORMAT--------------------------
 
REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES VIA THE INTERNET
 
(1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images  (if possible,
identify the relevant types of data or science products, user tools, and
standards).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)  Uses of remote sensing data and images in education (especially levels
K-12) and other noncommercial areas (if possible, identify the relevant types
of data or science products, user tools, and standards). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data and images
more accessible (if possible, identify relevant types of formats, standards,
and user tools)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4)  Additional suggested persons or organizations that may be resources for 
further ideas on applications areas.  Please include: Name, Organization, 
Address and Telephone Number.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(5)  Organizations, mailing lists (electronic and paper), periodicals, etc. to
whom a solicitation for proposals should be sent when developed.  Please 
include: Name, Organization, Address and Telephone Number.
 
 
 
(6)  We would benefit from knowing why users that know about NASA remote 
sensing data do not use the data.  Is it because they do not have ties to NASA
investigators, or high cost, lack of accessibility, incompatible data formats,
poor area of interest coverage, inadequate spatial or spectral resolution, ...?
 
 
 
 
 
(7)  In case we have questions, please send us your name, address, phone number
(and e-mail address if you have one).  If you don't wish to send us this
information, feel free to respond to the survey anonymously.  Thank you for
your assistance. 
 
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61242
From: pgf@space.mit.edu (Peter G. Ford)
Subject: Re: Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac

In article cnp@morrow.stanford.edu, ME.DMG@forsythe.stanford.edu (David Gaba M.D.) writes:
>Two and a half years ago I purchased a set of CD ROMs from the
>University of Colorado Lab for Atmos. and Space Physics.  They
>were Space Sciences Sampler and Voyagers to the Outer Planets.
>...
>With Pixel Pusher we could never get past messages something like
>This file has no PDS label, please fill in the following info
>(a bunch of slots with most zeros).  Yet, we could open the
>image file in Word and see the label file at the beginning.

The compressed image format used for the Voyager disks is not (yet)
supported by any Macintosh display software that I know of. However,
there does exist a program that can convert the images to a format that
is recognized by recent versions of both Pixel Pusher and NIH/Image. It
is called "PDS Decompress" and is available via anonymous ftp from the
"pub" directory on "delcano.mit.edu" [18.75.0.80]. This is a Binhex/
Stuffit archive and contains the application itself, Think-C source,
and a very brief description.

The most recent version of NIH/Image (1.48) may be down-loaded from
"starhawk.jpl.nasa.gov", where it is located in "image148.hqx" in the
"pub" directory. This archive also contains source code, but not the
documentation, which is located in the "image1455.hqx" archive in the
same directory.

Regards,
Peter G. Ford
Manager, Microwave SubNode
NASA Planetary Data System


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61243
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Life on Mars???

I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President,
but this is from last fall:

     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992

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

     "The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make
      anything."
        -- Edward John Phelps, American Diplomat/Lawyer (1825-1895)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61244
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics



                      LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists 
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all 
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single 
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically 
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! 

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he 
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of 
          space and time: 
    
               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." 
    
               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." 
    
               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE 
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward 
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light 
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL 
          DATUM"). 
      
               At each step in the development, Larson was able to 
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the 
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles 
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star 
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white 
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET 
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY 
          BURSTS). 
          
               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, 
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility 
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of 
          matter. 

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy 
          complex mathematics, in his books. 
    


          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
          
               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early 
          books are out of print now, but still available through 
          inter-library loan. 
    
               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) 
    
               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
    
               "Beyond Newton" (1964) 
    
               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) 
    
               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) 
    
               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) 
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super 
                                                            Collider".] 
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) 
     
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.] 
      
               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)

               All but the last of these books were published by North 
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and 
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local 
          university or public library doesn't have each of them. 

               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available 
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS), 
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the 
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.  
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly 
          journal "RECIPROCITY". 

          

          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
    
               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer 
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he 
          died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
          Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He 
          developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE 
          chemical properties based only on the elements used. 
    
               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one 
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is 
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider 
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same 
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX 
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, 
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC 
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. 
     
               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally 
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.  
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER 
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in 
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. 
    
               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been 
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now! 
    
               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe 
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of 
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who 
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", 
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED 
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. 
    
    
               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, 
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or 
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE 
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of 
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to 
          Minneapolis after retiring. 
    


          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
          
               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super 
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS 
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" 
          value. 
    
               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the 
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY 
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) 
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, 
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are 
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly 
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible 
          with their environment. 
    
               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a 
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not 
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE 
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! 
    
               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for 
          this WASTED money?! 
    
     
               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed 
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some 
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground 
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water 
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of 
          the "Supercollider"?! 
    
          
               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as 
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be 
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. 
      


          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
          
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of 
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more 
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the 
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, 
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". 
     
               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of 
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet, 
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their 
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each 
          other. 
      
               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical 
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension 
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our 
          MATERIAL half. 
       


          LARSONIAN Relativity
          
               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury 
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the 
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this 
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational 
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, 
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to 
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". 
    
               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results 
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by 
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his 
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH 
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. 
    
               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special 
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near 
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on 
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, 
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). 
     
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead 
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured 
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one 
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low 
          relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are 
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and 
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. 
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing 
          about this.] 
    
     
               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in 
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near 
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is 
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists 
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory, 
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is 
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS 
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.  
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward 
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of 
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL 
          FANTASY). 
    
                                    
          
          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE 
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific 
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456 
          pages, indexed, hardcover. 
    
               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that 
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. 
    
               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical 
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and 
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of 
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white 
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. 
    
               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL 
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with 
          OPEN MINDS! 
    
               The following is an example of his Theory's success: 
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL 
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING 
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding 
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's 
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he 
          had an immediate related explanation for them also. 
    

 
          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching 
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were 
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the 
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in 
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions 
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT 
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of 
          directional coincidence). 
    
               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of 
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the 
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the 
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls 
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the 
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and 
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can 
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at 
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do 
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all 
          directions uniformly.) 
    
               I wonder how close to us in space a source location 
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most 
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to 
          stop it! 
    
               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which 
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were 
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! 
    


          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
          
               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the 
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox 
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory 
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. 
    
               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY 
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of 
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey 
          B. Larson. 
    
               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is 
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" 
          and in some of his other books. 
    
               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate 
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow 
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE 
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each 
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the 
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal 
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and 
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually 
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and 
          lighter elements. 
    
               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the 
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I 
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron 
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms 
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some 
          of his books [better than I can]. 
    
               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the 
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less 
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center 
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to 
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The 
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and 
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN 
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. 
    
               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall 
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown 
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The 
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a 
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward 
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R 
          Diagram. 
    
               The chances of the two masses falling back into the 
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star 
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY 
          system, orbiting each other. 
     
               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE 
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the 
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown 
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron 
          stars", "black holes", etc.. 
    


          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the 
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single 
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf 
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably 
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected 
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS! 
      
               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all 
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive 
          his own version of Bode's Law. 
          


          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently 
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black 
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and 
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than 
          the sum of the two original "black holes". 
    
               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED 
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black 
          holes", etc.! 
    
               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about 
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is 
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is 
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black 
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want 
          to "prove" their theory. 
    
    
               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is 
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and 
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical 
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT! 
    
               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread 
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's 
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of 
          Unified Science). 
          
          
          
          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection 
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to 
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. 
    
               I found a possible clue about why they might work on 
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of 
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe.  I quote one paragraph: 
    
               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development 
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally 
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.  
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It 
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT 
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which 
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, 
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in 
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities 
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are 
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of 
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the 
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged 
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension 
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, 
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open 
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently 
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference 
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the 
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, 
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by 
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All 
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons 
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.  
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, 
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The 
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth 
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." 
          
               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are 
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a 
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning 
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).  
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, 
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and 
          "below" labels mixed up.] 
    
               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of 
          light! 
    
               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION 
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these 
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a 
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to 
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge 
          is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular 
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the 
          rotation of the particle.) 
      
               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to 
          confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is 
          generated in clouds. 



          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has 
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in 
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". 
    
               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, 
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call 
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as 
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to 
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. 
    
               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many 
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such 
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. 
    
               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY 
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, 
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles 
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses 
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and 
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a 
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. 
    
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED. 


                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
          


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61245
From: vandenbe@crayxmp.lmsc.lockheed.com (J.A. Vanden Beukel)
Subject: Re: Drag Free Satellites

Regarding drag free satellites, Joe Cain gives a good description of the concept.  It is however more than a concept.  The Navy's Triad satellite succesfully used drag free control.  Drag free control is an integral part of the Stanford Gravity Probe-B spacecraft, due to fly in 1999.  It is also part of the European STEP satellite.

Jeff V.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61246
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <1rh4rqINNi7o@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>>>of a private Titan pad? 
>>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
>>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
>>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
>>would have far better cost-effectiveness.
>
>Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest
>wins. 

Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the
prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can
spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.

What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
the prize is just the icing on the cake.

I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough
return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current
US launchers.  (There would surely be a buy-American clause in the rules
for such a prize, since it would pretty well have to be government-funded.)
You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch
system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is
of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.

>... could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I
>wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...

I'm sure Spar would offer to develop such a lunar-tuned system and deliver
a couple of them to you for only a couple of hundred million dollars.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61247
From: robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

David Fuzzy Wells (wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

: I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
: really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
: Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  

: <BOOM!>  Whooooooooshhhhhh......  <sputter, sputter>

: <okay, PRETEND it would make a sound!>
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just a thought... (let's pretend it IS INFLATED and PRESSURIZED) wouldn't
there be a large static electricity build up around the puncture?
If the metalization is behind a clear sandwich (ie. insulated) then the 
deflating balloon would generate electrical interference - "noise"

By the way, any serious high velocity impact would simply cut a "Bugs
Bunny" hole through the wall, highly unlikely to "BOOM", and the fabric
would almost certainly be ripstop.


Regards,  Robin Kenny - a private and personal opinion, not in any way
                        endorsed, authorised or known by my employers.
 ______________________________________________________________________
   What the heck would I know about Space? I'm stuck at the 
   bottom of this huge gravity well!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61248
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Moonbase race

George William Herbert sez:

>Hmm.  $1 billion, lesse... I can probably launch 100 tons to LEO at
>$200 million, in five years, which gives about 20 tons to the lunar
>surface one-way.  Say five tons of that is a return vehicle and its
>fuel, a bigger Mercury or something (might get that as low as two
>tons), leaving fifteen tons for a one-man habitat and a year's supplies?
>Gee, with that sort of mass margins I can build the systems off
>the shelf for about another hundred million tops.  That leaves
>about $700 million profit.  I like this idea 8-)  Let's see
>if you guys can push someone to make it happen 8-) 8-)

I like your optimism, George.  I don't know doots about raising that kind
of dough, but if you need people to split the work and the $700M, you just
give me a ring :-)  Living alone for a year on the moon sounds horrid, but
I'd even try that, if I got a bigger cut.  :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61249
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: NASA Ames server (was Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4)

In article <1993Apr26.152722.19887@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes:
> I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
[...]
> Sorry it took
> me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
> but it's out of space.

How ironic.

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

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61250
From: tholen@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

Alan Carter writes:

>> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

> This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
> someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

The name is rather descriptive.  It's a command to the spacecraft that tells
it "If you don't hear from Earth after 264 hours, assume something is wrong
with your (the spacecraft) attitude, and go into a preprogrammed search mode
in an attempt to reacquire the signal from Earth."

The spacecraft and Earth are not in constant communication with each other.
Earth monitors the telemetry from the spacecraft, and if everything is fine,
there's no reason to send it any new information.  But from the spacecraft's
point of view, no information from Earth could mean either everything is
fine, or that the spacecraft has lost signal acquisition.  Just how long
should the spacecraft wait before it decides that something is wrong and
begins to take corrective action?  That "how long" is the command loss timer.
During relatively inactive cruise phases, the command loss timer can be set
to rather long values.  In this case, Earth is telling Galileo "expect to
hear back from us sometime within the next 264 hours".

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61251
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?

The variance from perfect sphericity in a model of the earth small enough
to fit into your home would probably be imperceptible.

Any globe you can buy will be close enough.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61252
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the
event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.

Just some idle babbling,
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61253
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - April 1993

                          THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF
                  THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                       Volume 4, Number 9 - April 1993

                         ###########################

                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

                         ###########################

          * ASA Membership and Article Submission Information

          * The Soviets and Venus, Part 3 - Larry Klaes

                         ###########################

                         ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

        The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
    (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the
    Atlantic, Incorporated.  The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated
    to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space
    exploration, as well as the social and educational needs of its members.

        ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in
    astronomy and space exploration.  Members receive the Journal of the
    ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail - Not a duplicate of this
    Electronic Journal) and the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine.
    Members may also purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY and
    SKY & TELESCOPE magazines.

        For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any
    of the following addresses:

        Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA)
        c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA)
        Georgia State University (GSU)
        Atlanta, Georgia  30303
        U.S.A.

        asa@chara.gsu.edu

        ASA BBS: (404) 321-5904, 300/1200/2400 Baud

        or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your
    address and/or receive the latest Society news.

        ASA Officers and Council -

        President - Eric Greene
        Vice President - Jeff Elledge
        Secretary - Ingrid Siegert-Tanghe
        Treasurer - Mike Burkhead
        Directors - Becky Long, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers
        Council - Bill Bagnuolo, Michele Bagnuolo, Don Barry, Bill Black, 
                  Mike Burkhead, Jeff Elledge, Frank Guyton, Larry Klaes, 
                  Ken Poshedly, Jim Rouse, Tano Scigliano, John Stauter, 
                  Wess Stuckey, Harry Taylor, Gary Thompson, Cindy Weaver, 
                  Bob Vickers


                             ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS

        Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration
    are most welcome.  Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to
    Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above
    Society addresses:

        klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
        or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
        or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
        or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

        You may also use the above addresses for EJASA back issue requests,
    letters to the editor, and ASA membership information.

        When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include
    either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a
    telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch.

        Back issues of the EJASA are also available from the ASA anonymous 
    FTP site at chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29).  Directory: /pub/ejasa

                                DISCLAIMER

        Submissions are welcome for consideration.  Articles submitted,
    unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated.  Though the articles will not
    be used for profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other
    changes.  Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is
    encouraged, provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s).
    Opinions expressed in the EJASA are those of the authors' and not
    necessarily those of the ASA.  This Journal is Copyright (c) 1993
    by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated.


                             THE SOVIETS AND VENUS
                                     PART 3

                       Copyright (c) 1993 by Larry Klaes

	The author gives permission to any group or individual wishing
	to distribute this article, so long as proper credit is given,
        the author is notified, and the article is reproduced in its 
        entirety.

        To the North Pole!

        On June 2 and 7, 1983, two of the Soviet Union's mighty PROTON 
    rockets lifted off from the Tyuratam Space Center in the Kazakhstan 
    Republic.  Aboard those boosters were a new breed of VENERA probe 
    for the planet Venus. 

        Designated VENERA 15 and 16, the probes were meant not for landing
    yet more spherical craft on the Venerean surface but to radar map the
    planet in detail from orbit.  To accomplish this task, the basic
    VENERA design was modified in numerous areas.  The central bus core
    was made one meter (39.37 inches) longer to carry the two tons of
    propellant required for braking into orbit, double the fuel carried by
    the VENERA 9 and 10 orbiters eight years earlier.  Extra solar panels
    were added on to give the vehicles more power for handling the large
    amounts of data which would be created by the radar imaging.  The
    dish-shaped communications antennae were also made one meter larger 
    to properly transmit this information to Earth. 

        Atop the buses, where landers were usually placed, were installed
    the 1.4 by 6-meter (4.62 by 19.8-foot), 300-kilogram (660-pound)
    POLYUS V side-looking radar antennae.  The radar system, possibly a
    terrain-imaging version of the nuclear-powered satellites used by 
    the Soviets for Earth ocean surveillance, would be able to map Venus'
    surface at a resolution of one to two kilometers (0.62 to 1.2 miles). 

        The Soviet probes' imaging parameters were a vast improvement over
    the United States PIONEER VENUS Orbiter, which could reveal objects 
    no smaller than 75 kilometers (45 miles) in diameter.  And while the
    VENERAs' resolution was comparable to that of similar observations 
    made by the 300-meter (1,000-foot) Arecibo radio telescope on the 
    island of Puerto Rico, the orbiters would be examining the northern
    pole of Venus.  This region was unobtainable by either Arecibo or 
    PIONEER VENUS and appeared to contain a number of potentially 
    interesting geological features worthy of investigation.

        On October 10, 1983, after an interplanetary journey of 330 
    million kilometers (198 million miles) and two mid-course corrections, 
    VENERA 15 fired its braking rockets over Venus to place itself in a 
    polar orbit 1,000 by 65,000 kilometers (600 by 39,000 miles) around 
    the planet, completing one revolution every twenty-four hours.  VENERA 
    16 followed suit four days later.  The twin probes thus became Venus' 
    first polar-circling spacecraft.

        Radar operations began on October 16 for VENERA 15 and October 20 
    for VENERA 16.  For up to sixteen minutes every orbit over the north
    pole, the probes would make a radar sweep of the surface 150 kilometers 
    (ninety miles) wide and nine thousand kilometers (5,400 miles) long.  
    The craft would then head out to the highest part of their orbits over 
    the south pole to recharge their batteries and transmit the data back 
    to two large Soviet antennae on Earth.  Each strip of information took 
    eight hours to process by computer.  By the end of their main missions 
    in July of 1984, the VENERAs had mapped 115 million square kilometers 
    (46 million square miles), thirty percent of the entire planet.

        VENERA 15 and 16 revealed that Venus has a surface geology more
    complex than shown by PIONEER VENUS in the late 1970s.  Numerous hills, 
    mountains, ridges, valleys, and plains spread across the landscape, 
    many of them apparently formed by lava from erupting volcanoes in the 
    last one billion years.  In planetary terms this makes the Venerean 
    surface rather young.  Hundreds of craters were detected as well, the 
    largest of which had to have been created by meteorites (planetoids 
    would be a better term here) at least fourteen kilometers (8.4 miles) 
    across, due to Venus' very dense atmosphere.

        There were some disagreements between U.S. and Soviet scientists
    on the origins of certain surface features.  For example, the probes' 
    owners declared that the 96-kilometer (57.6-mile) wide crater at the 
    summit of 10,800-meter (35,640-foot) high Maxwell Montes, the tallest 
    mountain on the planet, was the result of a meteorite impact.  American 
    scientists, on the other hand, felt the crater was proof that Maxwell 
    was a huge volcano sitting on the northern "continent" of Ishtar Terra.  

        In any event, the U.S. decided to wait on making verdicts about
    Venus until the arrival of their own radar probe, scheduled for later
    in the decade.  Originally named the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar
    (VOIR), its initial design was scaled back and the craft was redesig-
    nated the Venus Radar Mapper (VRM).  Eventually the machine would be 
    called MAGELLAN, after the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan 
    (circa 1480-1521).  This vehicle would map the entire planet in even 
    finer detail than the VENERAs.  For the time, however, the Soviet 
    probes maintained that distinction.

        Radar imaging was not the only ability of the VENERAs.  Bolted
    next to the POLYUS V radar antenna were the Omega altimeter and the 
    Fourier infrared spectrometer, the latter for measuring the world's
    temperatures.  The majority of the areas covered registered about
    five hundred degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit), but a few
    locations were two hundred degrees hotter, possibly indicating 
    current volcanic activity.  The probes also found that the clouds 
    over the poles were five to eight kilometers (three to 4.8 miles) 
    lower than at the equator.  In contrast, the polar air above sixty 
    kilometers (thirty-six miles) altitude was five to twenty degrees 
    warmer than the equatorial atmosphere at similar heights.

        When the main mapping mission ended in July of 1984, there were 
    plans for at least one of the VENERAs to radar image the surface at 
    more southernly latitudes.  Unfortunately this idea did not come to 
    pass, as the orbiters may not have possessed enough attitude-control
    gas to perform the operation.  

        VENERA 15 and 16 ceased transmission in March of 1985, leaving 
    the Soviet Institute of Radiotechnology and Electronics with six 
    hundred kilometers (360 miles) of radar data tape to sort into an 
    atlas of twenty-seven maps of the northern hemisphere of Venus.

        Venus by Balloon

        For years the thick atmosphere of Venus had been a tempting 
    target to scientists who wished to explore the planet's mantle of 
    air with balloon-borne instruments.  Professor Jacques Blamont of 
    the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
    had proposed such an idea as far back as 1967, only to have a joint 
    French-Soviet balloon mission canceled in 1982.  Nevertheless, 
    late in the year 1984, such dreams would eventually come true.

        When two PROTON rockets were sent skyward on December 15 and 21, 
    the Soviet Union provided Western observers with the first clear, full 
    views of the booster which had been launching every Soviet Venus probe 
    since 1975.  This was but one of many firsts for the complex mission.

        The unmanned probes launched into space that December were named
    VEGA 1 and 2, a contraction of the words VENERA and GALLEI - Gallei
    being the Russian word for Halley.  Not only did the spacecraft 
    have more than one mission to perform, they also had more than one 
    celestial objective to explore, namely the comet Halley.  

        This famous periodic traveler was making its latest return to 
    the inner regions of the solar system since its last visit in 1910.
    Since it was widely believed that comets are the icy remains from
    the formation of the solar system five billion years ago, scientists 
    around the world gave high priority to exploring one of the few such 
    bodies which actually come close to Earth.  

        Most comets linger in the cold and dark outer fringes of the solar 
    system.  Some, like Halley, are perturbed by various forces and fall 
    in towards the Sun, where they circle for millennia spewing out ice 
    and debris for millions of kilometers from the warmth of each solar 
    encounter.

        The Soviet Union, along with the European Space Agency (ESA) and
    Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), did not
    wish to miss out on this first opportunity in human history to make a
    close examination of Halley.  The ESA would be using the cylindrical
    GIOTTO probe to make a dangerously close photographic flyby of the 
    comet, while Japan's first deep space craft - SAKIGAKE (Pioneer) and 
    SUISEI (Comet) - would view Halley from a much safer distance. 

        Scientists in the United States also desired to study the comet
    from the vantage of a space probe, at one time envisioning a vessel
    powered by solar sails or ion engines.  However, government budget
    cuts to NASA canceled the American efforts.  The U.S. would have to
    make do primarily with Earth-based observations and the sharing of 
    data from other nations, though an instrument named the Dust Counter 
    and Mass Analyzer (DUCMA), designed by Chicago University Professor 
    John Simpson, was added on the Soviet mission in May of 1984.

        The Soviets' answer to Halley were the VEGAs.  Instead of building
    an entirely new craft for the mission, the Soviets decided to modify
    their VENERA bus design to encounter the comet while performing an 
    advanced Venus mission along the way.  As VEGA 1 and 2 reached Venus,
    the buses would drop off one lander/balloon each and use the mass of 
    the shrouded planet to swing them towards comet Halley, much as the 
    U.S. probe MARINER 10 used Venus to flyby Mercury eleven years earlier. 
    The Soviet craft would then head on to Halley, helping to pinpoint the 
    location of the comet's erupting nucleus for the GIOTTO probe to dive 
    in only 605 kilometers (363 miles) away in March of 1986.

        As planned, the two VEGAs arrived at Venus in June of 1985.  VEGA
    1 released its payload first on the ninth day of the month, the lander
    making a two-day descent towards the planet.  The craft touched the
    upper atmosphere on the morning of June 11.  Sixty-one kilometers
    (36.6 miles) above the Venerean surface a small container was released
    by the lander, which produced a parachute at 55 kilometers (33 miles)
    altitude.  Thus the first balloon probe ever to explore Venus had
    successfully arrived. 

        One kilometer after the opening of the parachute, helium gas was
    pumped into the Teflon-coated plastic balloon, inflating it to a
    diameter of 3.54 meters (11.68 feet).  Dangling on a tether thirteen
    meters (42.9 feet) below was the instrument package, properly known as
    an aerostat.  The top part of the 6.9-kilogram (15.18-pound) aerostat
    consisted of a cone which served as an antenna and tether attachment
    point to the balloon.  Beneath it was the transmitter, electronics,
    and instruments.  Connected at the bottom was a nephelometer for
    measuring cloud particles.  The aerostat was painted with a special
    white finish to keep at bay the corroding mist of sulfuric acid which
    permeated the planet's atmosphere. 

        The VEGA 1 balloon was dropped into the night side of Venus just
    north of the equator.  Scientists were concerned that the gas bag 
    would burst in the heat of daylight, so they placed it in the darkened 
    hemisphere to give the craft as much time as possible to return data.  
    This action necessitated that the landers come down in the dark as 
    well, effectively removing the camera systems used on previous missions.  
    The author wonders, though, if they could have used floodlights similar 
    to the ones attached to VENERA 9 and 10 in 1975, when Soviet scientists 
    had thought the planet's surface was enshrouded in a perpetual twilight 
    due to the permanently thick cloud cover.

        The first balloon transmitted for 46.5 hours right into the day
    hemisphere before its lithium batteries failed, covering 11,600
    kilometers (6,960 miles).  The threat of bursting in the day heat did
    not materialize.  The VEGA 1 balloon was stationed at a 54-kilometer
    (32.4-mile) altitude after dropping ballast at fifty kilometers
    (thirty miles), for this was considered the most active of the three
    main cloud layers reported by PIONEER VENUS in 1978.  Indeed the
    balloon was pushed across the planet at speeds up to 250 kilometers
    (150 miles) per hour.  Strong vertical winds bobbed the craft up and
    down two to three hundred meters (660 to 990 feet) through most of the
    journey.  The layer's air temperature averaged forty degrees Celsius
    (104 degrees Fahrenheit) and pressure was a mere 0.5 Earth atmosphere.
    The nephelometer could find no clear regions in the surrounding clouds. 

        Early in the first balloon's flight, the VEGA 1 lander was already
    headed towards the Venerean surface.  Both landers were equipped with
    a soil drill and analyzer similar to the ones carried on VENERA 13 
    and 14 in 1982.  However, VEGA 1 would become unable to report the
    composition of the ground at its landing site in Rusalka Planitia, the
    Mermaid Plain north of Aphrodite Terra.  While still ten to fifteen
    minutes away from landing, a timer malfunction caused the drill to 
    accidentally begin its programmed activity sixteen kilometers (9.6 
    miles) above the surface. 

        There was neither any way to shut off the instrument before
    touchdown nor reactivate it after landing.  This was unfortunate not
    only for the general loss of data but also for the fact that most of
    Venus was covered with such smooth low-level lava plains and had never 
    before been directly examined.  Nevertheless, the surface temperature 
    and pressure was calculated at 468 degrees Celsius (874.4 degrees 
    Fahrenheit) and 95 Earth atmospheres respectively during the lander's 
    56 minutes of ground transmissions.  A large amount of background 
    infrared radiation was also recorded at the site.

        As had been done when the drills and cameras on VENERA 11 and 
    12 had failed in December of 1978, the Soviets focused on the data
    returned during the lander's plunge through the atmosphere.  The
    French-Soviet Malachite mass spectrometer detected sulfur, chlorine, 
    and possibly phosphorus.  It is the sulfur - possibly from active 
    volcanoes - which gives the Venerean clouds their yellowish color.
    The Sigma 3 gas chromatograph found that every cubic meter of air
    between an altitude of 48 and 63 kilometers (28.8 and 37.8 miles)
    contained one milligram (0.015 grain) of sulfuric acid.

        The VEGA 1 data on the overall structure of the cloud decks 
    appeared to be at odds with the information from PIONEER VENUS.
    The case was made even stronger by the fact that VEGA 2's results
    nearly matched its twin.  The VEGAs found only two main cloud layers 
    instead of the three reported by the U.S. probes.  The layers were 
    three to five kilometers (1.8 to 3 miles) thick at altitudes of 50 
    and 58 kilometers (30 and 34.8 miles).  The clouds persisted like a
    thin fog until clearing at an altitude of 35 kilometers (21 miles), 
    much lower than the PV readings.  One possibility for the discrepan-
    cies may have been radical structural changes in the Venerean air 
    over the last seven years.

        When the lander and balloon finally went silent, the last 
    functioning part of the VEGA 1 mission, the flyby bus, sailed on
    for a 708 million-kilometer (424.8 million-mile) journey around
    the Sun to become the first probe to meet comet Halley.  On March
    6, 1986, the bus made a 8,890-kilometer (5,334-mile) pass at the 
    dark and icy visitor before traveling on in interplanetary space.
    The Soviets had accomplished their first mission to two celestial
    bodies with one space vessel.

        On June 13, VEGA 2 released its lander/balloon payload for
    a two-day fall towards Venus.  Like its duplicate, the VEGA 2
    balloon radioed information back to the twenty antennae tracking
    it on Earth for 46.5 hours before battery failure on the morning
    side of the planet.  During its 11,100-kilometer (6,660-mile)
    flight over Venus, the second balloon entered in a rather still
    environment which became less so twenty hours into the mission.
    After 33 hours mission time the air became even more turbulent 
    for a further eight hours.  When the balloon passed over a five-
    kilometer (three-mile) mountain on the "continent" of Aphrodite 
    Terra, a powerful downdraft pulled the craft 2.5 kilometers (1.5 
    miles) towards the surface.

        Temperature sensors on the VEGA 2 balloon reported that the air 
    layer it was moving through was consistently 6.5 degrees Celsius 
    (43.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the area explored by the VEGA 1
    balloon.  This was corroborated by the VEGA 2 lander as it passed 
    through the balloon's level.  No positive indications of lightning
    were made by either balloon, and the second aerostat's nephelometer 
    failed to function.

        The VEGA 2 lander touched down on the northern edge of Aphrodite
    Terra's western arm on the fifteenth of June, 1,500 kilometers (900
    miles) southeast of VEGA 1.  The lander's resting place was smoother
    than thought, indicating either a very ancient and worn surface or a
    relatively young one covered in fresh lava.  The soil drill was in
    working order and reported a rock type known as anorthosite-troctolite, 
    rare on Earth but present in Luna's highlands.  This rock is rich in 
    aluminum and silicon but lacking in iron and magnesium.  A high degree 
    of sulfur was also present in the soil.  The air around VEGA 2 measured 
    463 degrees Celsius (865.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and 91 Earth atmospheres,
    essentially a typical day (or night) on Venus.

        Far above the VEGA 2 lander, its carrier bus sped past Venus at
    a distance of 24,500 kilometers (14,700 miles) and followed its twin 
    to comet Halley, making a closer flyby on March 9, 1986 at just 8,030 
    kilometers (4,818 miles).  Both probes helped to reveal that the comet 
    is a very dark and irregular-shaped mass about fourteen kilometers 
    (8.4 miles) across, rotating once every 53 hours, give or take three 
    hours.

        Since both VEGA craft were still functioning after their Halley
    encounters, Soviet scientists considered an option to send the 
    probes to other celestial objects.  One prime target was the near-
    Earth planetoid 2101 Adonis, which VEGA 2 could pass at a distance 
    of six million kilometers (3.6 million miles).  Sadly, the Soviets 
    had to back out on the opportunity to become the first nation to fly 
    a spacecraft past a planetoid when it was discovered that there was 
    not enough maneuvering fuel in the probe to reach Adonis as planned.  
    VEGA 1 and 2 were quietly shut down in early 1987.

        Future Plans Diverted

        The impressive VEGA mission had given some scientists numerous 
    ideas and hope for even more ambitious expeditions to the second 
    world from the Sun.  One example was the VESTA mission, planned for
    the early 1990s.

        This Soviet-French collaboration called for the launch of multiple 
    probes on a single PROTON rocket in either 1991 or 1992.  The craft 
    would first swing by Venus and drop off several landers and balloon 
    probes.  The aerostats would be designed to survive in the planet's 
    corrosive atmosphere for up to one month, a large improvement over 
    the VEGA balloons' two days.  The mission would then head out to 
    investigate several planetoids and comets, including a possible 
    landing on Vesta (thus the mission name), the most reflective Main 
    Belt planetoid as seen from Earth.

        Unfortunately for Venus exploration, plans began to change in
    the Soviet Union.  In 1986 the Soviets decided to reroute the VESTA
    mission to the red planet Mars instead of Venus, keeping the comet
    and planetoid aspects intact.  By this time in the Soviet space 
    program interest was focusing on Mars.  Already under construction 
    was an entirely new probe design called PHOBOS.  Two members of this 
    class were planned to leave Earth in 1988 and orbit Mars the next 
    year.  PHOBOS 1 and 2 would then place the first instruments on
    Mars' largest moon, Phobos. 

        All this was a prelude to even more advanced Mars expeditions,
    including balloon probes, rovers, soil sample return craft, and 
    eventually human explorers in the early Twenty-First Century.
    The environment of Venus was just too hostile for any serious
    consideration of human colonization in the near future.

        But things began to look bleak for Soviet Venus and Mars
    exploration.  Both PHOBOS probes failed to complete their missions,
    one losing contact on the way to the Red Planet in 1988 and the other
    going silent in Mars orbit just one week before the planned moon
    landing in March of 1989. 

        In 1989 a plan was devised for a Venus orbiter to drop eight to
    ten penetrators around the planet in 1998.  Several years later the
    mission launch date was moved to the year 2005 and has now been put 
    on indefinite hold.  No other official Soviet missions to Venus have
    since been put forth, a sad commentary after twenty-five years of
    continuous robotic exploration of the planet. 

        During the late 1980s a drastic political and economic change
    was taking over the Soviet Union.  President Mikhail Gorbachev began 
    to "open up" his nation to the benefits of increased cooperation with 
    the rest of the nations, particularly those in the West.  While the 
    culture became less oppressive than in the past, the economy was taking 
    a very rough ride as it also underwent the effects of a "free market".

        These effects hit everywhere, including the space program.
    Missions at all levels were cut back.  The Soviets began making
    almost desperate attempts to cooperate with other space-faring
    nations either to keep their remaining programs alive or just to 
    make money.  

        In early 1992 it was reported that the Soviets were offering for 
    sale several fully-equipped VENERAs they had in storage for the price 
    of 1.6 million dollars each, an incredibly low price for any planetary 
    probe.  No nation took them up on the bargain.  Meanwhile the United 
    States was gearing up for new Venus missions of their own.

        MAGELLAN and GALILEO 

        The U.S. reactivated their long-dormant planetary exploration
    with the launch of the Space Shuttle ATLANTIS on May 4, 1989.
    Aboard the Shuttle was the MAGELLAN spacecraft, a combination of
    spare parts from other U.S. probes designed to make the most 
    detailed and complete radar-mapping of Venus in history.  When
    MAGELLAN reached the second world in August of 1990, it would be
    able to map almost the entire planet down to a resolution of 108
    meters (360 feet), surpassing the abilities of VENERA 15 and 16.

        In the interim another American probe was launched from a Space 
    Shuttle which would make a quick flyby of Venus on its way to orbit 
    the giant planet Jupiter in 1995.  On October 18, 1989, the Shuttle 
    ATLANTIS released its second unmanned planetary probe into space, 
    named GALILEO after the famous Italian astronomer who discovered the 
    probe's primary target's major moons in 1610.

        In the absence of a powerful enough booster to send GALILEO on
    a direct flight to the Jovian planet, the probe was sent around
    Venus and Earth several times to build up enough speed to reach
    Jupiter.  As a result, Venus became GALILEO's first planetary
    goal in February of 1990.  The probe radioed back images of the
    planet's swirling clouds and further indications of lightning in
    that violent atmosphere.

        On the Drawing Boards

        With the incredible success of MAGELLAN in the last few years,
    new plans have been laid out for further journeys to Venus.  Scien-
    tists in the U.S. have talked to space scientists in the former Soviet 
    Union - now the Commonwealth of Independent States since January 1, 
    1992 - of a cooperative effort to launch new VENERA lander missions 
    within in the next decade.  Japan, India, and the ESA have also
    considered their own Venus missions in the next few decades.

        In February of 1993 NASA came up with several new Venus projects 
    as part of their Discovery Program for launching inexpensive probes
    throughout the solar system.  For Venus two missions were selected
    for further study:  A Venus Multiprobe Mission involving the landing
    of fourteen small probes over one hemisphere to measure winds, air
    temperature, and pressure; and the Venus Composition Probe, designed
    to study Venus' atmosphere while descending through the thick air
    with the aid of a parachute, much as the Soviets had done since 1967.
    Final project decisions will be made in 1994.

        Humans on Venus      

        Will a human ever be able to stand on the surface of Venus?
    At present the lead-melting temperatures and crushing air pressure
    would be threatening to any Earth life not protected in something
    even tougher than a VENERA lander.  Plans have been looked into
    changing the environment of Venus itself into something more like
    Earth's.  However, it should be noted that any such undertaking
    will require the removal of much of the thick carbon dioxide 
    atmosphere, a major reduction in surface heat, and the ability 
    to speed up the planet's rotation rate to something a bit faster
    than once every 243 Earth days.  Such a project may take centuries
    if not millennia.

        In the meantime efforts should be made to better understand
    Venus as its exists today.  We still have yet to fully know how
    a world so seemingly similar to Earth in many important ways became
    instead such a deadly place.  Will Earth ever suffer this fate?
    Perhaps Venus holds the answers.  Such answers may best be found
    through international cooperation, including the nation which 
    made the first attempts to lift the cloudy veils from Venus.

        Bibliography -

         Barsukov, V. L., Senior Editor, VENUS GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND 
           GEOPHYSICS: RESEARCH RESULTS FROM THE U.S.S.R., University of
           Arizona Press, Tucson, 1992

         Beatty, J. Kelly, and Andrew Chaikin, Editors, THE NEW SOLAR 
           SYSTEM, Cambridge University Press and Sky Publishing Corp.,
           Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990

         Burgess, Eric, VENUS: AN ERRANT TWIN, Columbia University Press, 
           New York, 1985

         Burrows, William E., EXPLORING SPACE: VOYAGES IN THE SOLAR
           SYSTEM AND BEYOND, Random House, Inc., New York, 1990

         Chaisson, Eric, and Steve McMillan, ASTRONOMY TODAY, Prentice-
           Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1993

         Gatland, Kenneth, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 
           Salamander Books, New York, 1989

         Greeley, Ronald, PLANETARY LANDSCAPES, Allen and Unwin, Inc.,
           Winchester, Massachusetts, 1987

         Hart, Douglas, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, Exeter 
           Books, New York, 1987

         Hartmann, William K., MOONS AND PLANETS (Third Edition), Wadsworth
           Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1993

         Harvey, Brian, RACE INTO SPACE: THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMME, 
           Ellis Howood Limited, Chichester, England, 1988

         Henbest, Nigel, THE PLANETS: PORTRAITS OF NEW WORLDS, Viking
           Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1992

         Johnson, Nicholas L., SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS 1980-1985, Volume
           66 Science and Technology Series, American Astronautical 
           Society, Univelt, Inc., San Diego, California, 1987

         Johnson, Nicholas L., THE SOVIET YEAR IN SPACE 1989/1990, 
           Teledyne Brown Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
           1990/1991

         Lang, Kenneth R., and Charles A. Whitney, WANDERERS IN SPACE:
           EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, Cambridge 
           University Press, New York, 1991

         MAGELLAN: THE UNVEILING OF VENUS, JPL 400-345, March 1989

         Murray, Bruce, Michael C. Malin, and Ronald Greeley, EARTHLIKE
           PLANETS: SURFACES OF MERCURY, VENUS, EARTH, MOON, MARS, W. H.
           Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, 1981

         Murray, Bruce, JOURNEY INTO SPACE: THE FIRST THREE DECADES OF
           SPACE EXPLORATION, W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1989

         Newcott, William, "Venus Revealed", NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, 
           Volume 183, Number 2, Washington, D.C., February 1993

         Nicks, Oran W., FAR TRAVELERS: THE EXPLORING MACHINES, NASA 
           SP-480, Washington, D.C., 1985

         Oberg, James Edward, NEW EARTHS: RESTRUCTURING EARTH AND OTHER
           PLANETS, A Meridian Book, New American Library, Inc., New
           York, 1983

         Robertson, Donald F., "Venus - A Prime Soviet Objective" (Parts 
           1/2), SPACEFLIGHT, Volume 34, Numbers 5/6, British Interplanetary
           Society (BIS), London, England, May/June 1992

         Smith, Arthur, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED
           SPACE PROBES, Patrick Stephens, Ltd., Wellingborough, Northamp-
           tonshire, England, 1988

         VOYAGE THROUGH THE UNIVERSE: THE NEAR PLANETS, By the Editors
           of Time-Life Books, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, 1990

         Wilson, Andrew, JANE'S SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, Jane's Publishing, Inc.,
           New York, 1987

        About the Author -

        Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, is the recipient of the ASA's 1990 
    Meritorious Service Award for his work as Editor of the EJASA since 
    its founding in August of 1989.  Larry also teaches a course on
    Basic Astronomy at the Concord-Carlisle Adult and Community 
    Education Program in Massachusetts.

        Larry is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer" - August 1989
        "Stopping Space and Light Pollution" - September 1989              
        "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" - October 1989
        "Astronomy and the Family" - May 1991  
        "The Soviets and Venus, Part 1" - February 1993
        "The Soviets and Venus, Part 2" - March 1993


      THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                          April 1993 - Vol. 4, No. 9

                           Copyright (c) 1993 - ASA


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61254
From: jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
a "NO-OP" command.

Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
nothing to do with jet propulsion.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@bnr.ca                        |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
BNR Ltd.     |  bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars5!jcobban         |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61255
From: seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

>Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> ... humans (and this was published
>> in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
>> long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
>> fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
>> course.

lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

Actually, both numbers are correct.  The difference is in the direction
of the acceleration.  For pilots, accelerations tend to be transverse to
the direction you're facing (pulling out from a steep dive, the
acceleration will force blood toward your feet, for instance).  In this
case, you can only put up with about 8 g's even with a pressure suit.  

The record for acceleration, though, is measured along "the direction
you're facing" (for lack of a better term).  As I recall, this record
was set in rocket sleds back in the 60's -- and was about 40 g's or so.

Eric Seale
seale@pogo.den.mmc.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61256
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:

>Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
>  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
>     of man-tended capability) 

>Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) 

>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.

I'll vote for anything where they don't feel constrained to use stupid
and ugly PC phrases to replace words like 'manned'.  If they think
they need to do that, they're more than likely engaging in 'politics
and public relations as usual' rather than seriously wanting to
actually get into space.  So that eliminates Option "A" from the
running.  What do they call a manned station in Option "C"?

[I'm actually about half serious about that.  People should be more
concerned with grammatical correctness and actually getting a working
station than they are with 'Political Correctness' of terminology.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61257
From: fairfiel@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
(in answer to Amruth Laxman
>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

>lan

Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that
figure is about right for sustained G, no protection.
The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are
all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented
gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor,
either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled
decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had
to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that
G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting
straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad
it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a
good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G.

A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a
fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures?

Ray Fairfield
fairfiel@zeus.usq.edu.au


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61258
From: vamwendt@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Michael Wendt)
Subject: Historic shuttle flights

        Would someone please send me a list of the historic space flights?  I 
am not looking for a list of all flights, just the ones in which something 
monumental happened.  Or better yet, is there an ftp site with the list of all
shuttle flights?

Thanks (if you helped),
vamwendt@upei.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61259
From: baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr25180118@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>     What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>
>Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution,
>crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.

How can you tell the difference between an intensity distribution which
is due to an "edge" in the spatial distribution and an intensity
distribution which is due an a sharp dropoff of intrinsic luminosities
below a certain threshold?  Could you describe (roughly) what the
intensity distribution is like?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61260
Subject: ROCKET LAUNCH OBSERVED!
From: leo.wikholm@compart.fi (Leo Wikholm)



    A bright light phenomenon was observed in the Eastern Finland
    on April 21. At 00.25 UT two people saw a bright, luminous
    pillar-shaped phenomenon in the low eastern horizont near
    Mikkeli. The head of the pillar was circular. The lower part
    was a little winding. It was like a monster they told. They
    were little frightened. Soon the yellowish pillar became
    enlarged. A bright spot like the Sun was appeared in the middle
    of the phenomenon. At last the light landed behind the nearby
    forest. Now there was only luminous trails in the sky which were
    visible till morning sunrise.

    The same phenomenon was observed also by Jaakko Kokkonen in
    Lappeenranta. At 00.26 UT he saw a luminous yellowish trail in
    the low northeastern horizont. The altitude of the trail was
    only about 3-4 degrees. Soon the trail began to grow taller.
    A loop was appeared in the head of the trail. It was like a
    spoon. This lasted only 10 seconds. Now the altitude was about
    five degress above horizont. He noted a bright spot at the
    upper stage of loop. The spot was at magnitude -2. The loop
    became enlarged and the spot was now visible in the middle of
    the loop. A cartwheel-shaped trail was appeared round the bright
    spot. After a minute the spot disappeared and only fuzzy trails
    were only visible in the low horizont. Luminous trails were still
    visible at 01.45 UT in the morning sky.

    The phenomenon was caused by a Russian rocket. I don't know if
    there were satellite launches in Plesetsk Cosmodrome near
    Arkhangelsk, but this may be a rocket experiment too. Since 1969
    we have observed over 80 rocket phenomena in Finland. Most of
    these are rocket experiments (military missile tests?), barium
    experiments and other chemical releases. During these years we
    have observed 17 satellite launches.

    Leo Wikholm

 =====================================================================
 Ursa Astronomical Association        I phone : +358-0-174048
 Satellite and Rocket Phenomena Sect. I fax   : +358-0-657728
 Laivanvarustajankatu 9 C 54          I bbs   : +358-0-174341
 FIN-00140 Helsinki                   I inter : leo.wikholm@compart.fi
 Finland                              I
 =====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61261
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Solid state vs. tube/analog

 Davis Nicoll sez;
>>      Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.

I'd buy that for two reasons.  The tubes for TV's and radios (if you can
still find them) are usually 3x or more expensive than comparable transistors.

Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)

Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61262
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!) writes:
>> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
> 
>> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
>> looked into possible problems with the detectors?
> 
>> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
>> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
>> things?
> 
>> Graydon
> 
> That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses
> and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be-
> fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the
> only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot
> locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With
> two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector
> to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors,
> one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these
> locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the 
> sky), voila, you have an error box.
> 
> BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
> but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
> to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
> pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.
> 
> You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe
> (in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen
> in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be
> a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss
> neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.
> 
> Peter
> peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu
> 

        All of this is VERY valid and very true.  But to add to this
explaniation, each individual detector also has a built in fail-safe, just so
the detector does not read the background radiation(i.e. cosmic rays), 
if I remember right, the detectors go off about 3 to 5 sigma above the 
background.  This is so they don't catch particularly energetic cosmic rays
that would normally set it off. Even with this buffer, they still have to throw
out something like 1/2 of the bursts that they DO get, because of the Earth's
Van Allen Belts, the South Atlantic Anomaly, the Sun,  if I remember right,
there is either a radar station, or a radio station in Australia, and there are
a couple other sources as well.  
                                                -jeremy
                                                belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu




Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61263
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

James Nicoll writes:

>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
> one  should be called 'Smiley'.

No, no, no!  The previous one was called "Smiley".  1992 QB1 = Smiley,
and 1993 FW = Karla.

Note that neither name is official.  It seems the discoverers have an
aversion to the designation scheme.

By the way, 1992 QB1 can never be known as "Smiley" officially, because
that moniker has already been assigned to asteroid number 1613.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61264
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr26.184507.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President,
>but this is from last fall:
>
>     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
>        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

Lets hear it for Dan Goldin...now if he can only convince the rest of
our federal government that the space program is a worth while
investment!

I hope that I will live to see the day we walk on Mars, but
we need to address the technical hurdles first!  If there's sufficient
interest, maybe we should consider starting a sci.space group 
devoted to the technical analysis of long-duration human spaceflight.
Most of you regulars know that I'm interested in starting this analysis
as soon as possible.

Ken
khayash@hsc.usc.edu
USC School of Medicine, Class of 1994


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61265
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Kupier Object: Smiley

James Nicholl sez;
>>       If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>>one  should be called 'Smiley'.

Jeff responds;
>Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
>object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

>--
>Jeff Foust              [49 days!]      "You're from outer space."
>Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech      "No, I'm from Iowa.  I only work in
>jafoust@cco.caltech.edu                  outer space."
>jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov                  -- from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Jeff.  If you work for JPL, then your
job IS imaging things :-)

(I know, it was a just a typo, but I couldn't resist.  At least, I hope it
was a typo, or my stupid joke is stupider than I intended :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61266
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Billboards in space

   From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
  >> Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
  >> please try to remember that there are more human activities than
  >> those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
  >> Priesthood.

F Baube responds;
   Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may
    freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

  Steinn Sez;
  >The Priesthood has never quite forgiven
  >the merchants (aka Profiting Caste [sic])
  >for their rise to power, has it?

If we are looking for evidence of belessed-by-God-ness, I'd say the ability
to blare lights all over the evening sky is about the best evidence you
could ever hope to get.  No wonder the preistly classes are upset :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61267
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
> 
> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
> rays?
> 
> How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
> distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
> megaparsec^2 is OK.
> 
> 
> --
>     John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
        I had to turn to one of my problem sets that I did in class for this
little problem.  I don't have a calculator, but I DO have the problem set that
we did not too long ago, so I'll use that, and hope it's what you wanted.  
This is a highly simplified problem, with a very simple burst.  Bursts are
usually more complex than this example I will use here.
        Our burst has a peak flux of 5.43E-6 ergs cm^-2 sec^-1 and a duration
of 8.95 seconds.  During the frst second of the burst, and the last 4 seconds,
its flux is half of the peak flux.  It's flux is the peak flux the rest of the
time.  Assume that the background flux is 10E-7 erg cm^-2 sec^-1.
        Then we had to find the integrated luminosity of the burst, for several
different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the
galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a
R=8800Mpc.  
        We integrated the flux over all time to find the fluence, then used the
old standby formula:
                        Luminosity=4(pi)(r^2)Fpeak
        For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty
energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
much energy in one second? 
                                                -jeremy




Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61270
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>....
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
>> 
>>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

>Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not

("like most good ideas,..." please, people!)

>_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't
>remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
>travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon, 

_Five Weeks in a Balloon_. Not a good idea unless you have helium.
Verne's protagonists didn't. They just got increadibly lucky.

And yes, I knew the title of the movie too, just didn't want to start
talking about it. Except to bring up the image of a team of S. African
Bushmen showing up at a launch site with spears and flint knives
to stop the launch (anyone want to bet on their success in doing so?
especially since they could probably stop a shuttle launch by sneezing
too hard within a couple miles of the launch site).
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61271
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they? 

belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

>catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
>distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
>homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
>sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
>Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
>suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
>disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
>interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
>to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
>tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an 
>analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
>the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
>away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
>arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
>and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
>find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.  

Uh, no. These burst detectors are just that, burst detectors.
They have no angular resolution.

Now a network of burst detectors could have angular resolution,
but we do not have a decent set of different networks at the distances
neccesary from each other to determine if they're happening in the oort
cloud or not.

We have one network, and trying to make two networks out of it
degrades what angular resolution we have.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61272
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Update - Back to the Moon bill

          Introducing the Back to the Moon in Congress:
                          The Next Step
                          
        The next key hurdle for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase 
Act is introduction of the Act in Congress. At this point,  many
congresspersons have been approached about the bill. However,
for a successful effort to pass the bill, we need the best
possible congressperson to introduce the bill. Due to his
position as Chair of the House Committee on Space and Science,
Congressman George Brown is the logical choice. He has a long
record of support and interest in space development, and helped
pass the Launch Services Purchase Act and the Space Settlements
Act.                      
        There is a small group of activists in southern California 
who have assisted George Brown in his recent re-election campaigns.
We are mobilizing this group to have them tell Congressman Brown
about the Back to the Moon bill. We are also asking pro-space
constituents to let him know that they care about getting
America back to the Moon.
        Finally, there is a good chance that a nationwide alert 
for space activists to call or write George Brown to have him
introduce the Back to the Moon bill may be staged during late
spring, 1993.
        All this should produce a positive reaction from Brown's
office. As more is known, it will be passed on.
        However, even if we are successful in getting him to support
the bill,  this alone will not ensure passage of the bill. For
any bill to become law, one of three conditions must exist:
either the bill must reflect widespread national support for an
issue (such as extension of unemployment insurance benefits); be
propelled by high-priced lobbyists (we're out of luck there); or
have widespread support within Congress, due to small, but
widespread, constituent support. The latter is the path that we,
by necessity, must choose.                    
        This means that the introduction of the Lunar Resources 
Data Purchase Act must be immediately accompanied by a large number
of congresspersons' sponsorship of the bill.  To accomplish
this, we need activists to ask their congressperson to support
the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act - now. To wait until the
bill is introduced is simply too late - it takes time to have a
congressperson's staff review a bill.
        If your congressperson mentions that the bill is not yet
introduced, please elicit their opinion of the bill as currently
written. We appreciate all comments on the bill from activists
and politicians.
        If you have yet to see the Back to the Moon bill, please
request a copy by Email (please include your U.S. postal service
address), or contact your local chapter of the National Space
Society).

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61273
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

In article <fairfiel.735866229@helios>, fairfiel@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield) writes:
> lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
> (in answer to Amruth Laxman
>>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.
> 
>>lan
> 
> Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that
> figure is about right for sustained G, no protection.
> The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are
> all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented
> gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor,
> either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled
> decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had
> to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that
> G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting
> straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad
> it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a
> good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G.
> 
> A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a
> fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures?
> 
> Ray Fairfield
> fairfiel@zeus.usq.edu.au
> 


Yes a flotation tank, combined with floride breathing water(REF: the Abyss
breathing solution I think).. also the right position of the astronaut and
strapping you can probably get much more than 45gs in an accesloration..
More like near 100g (or somewhat less)..

Saw I book called the "Time Master" (I thjink that was the title) that had some
ideas on how fast and all you could go..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61274
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

I know that alot of how people think and act in a long distance space project
would be much like old tiem explorers, sailors, hunters and such who spent alot
of time alone, isolated, and alone or in minimal surroundings and sopcial
contacts.. Such as the old arctic and antarctic expeditions and such..

I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
such..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61275
From: scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:

>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
>Thanks in advance.

Even if they did, a globe at a scale that you could fit into your average room
or even average "hall" the deviations you mention would not be visually
evident. In other words a micrometer would be required to test the fact that 
the Globe was infact pear-shaped.  

Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [scott@psy.uwa.oz.au]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).                
                                                             _--_|\       N
Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E
University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S
Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v       

    *** ERROR 144 - REBOOT? is a registered trademark of ENSONIQ Corp ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61276
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

Wm Hathaway comments;
>I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
>practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for
>research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I
>would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may
>never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred -
>unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars
>as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and
>a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time
>- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man.
>Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.
>Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there
>and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief
>in an afterlife.

>The Space Age changed all that.  [more on man's effect on the environment]

>But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't
>fouled in some way.
>.... I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid,
>even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved.

I agree that the desire for beauty is valid, but I think your desire to
impose your vision of beauty is not.  You mention the age-old desire to
somehow get up there, but ignore the beauty of the actual achievment
of that vision.  You mention the beauty of a very dark sky, not impeded
by the effects of humans, but ignore the beauty of the as-dark-as-can-be
sky that is only visible from space, a vision that we, or at least,
our descendents, may one day be able to see, in part, because of efforts
that others call ugly.  One day, I hope, humans will be able to look out,
not upon half the heavens, with only nature-creted lights, but upon all
of the heavens, with no lights.  If advertising in space can help us reach
that goal, it is no less beautiful for the way we reach it, than the
'pristine' sky of yesteryear (or yester-century), which is totally
unreachable.  One of the original conceptions of beauty in wetsern
sculpture was a human form, in the effort of striving to reach a goal.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that modernity has changed that,
just because it has changed the way we strive.

BTW, there are places that people haven't fouled.  Sometimes they make
it better.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61277
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>James Nicoll writes:

>>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>> one  should be called 'Smiley'.

>No, no, no!  The previous one was called "Smiley".  1992 QB1 = Smiley,
>and 1993 FW = Karla.

>By the way, 1992 QB1 can never be known as "Smiley" officially, because
>that moniker has already been assigned to asteroid number 1613.

Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a 
perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure that
I don't know what that reason is.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61278
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
  Sorry, you have a _wish_ for an uncluttered night sky, but it
isn't a right. When you get down to it, you actually have no rights
that the majority haven't agreed to give you (and them in the process).
It's a common misconception that being born somehow endows you with
rights to this that and the other. Sadly this is not true.
  Now if you want to talk about the responsibility that _should_ go with
the power to clutter the night sky, then that's a different matter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61279
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Subject: France spied on by the U.S.

A young French skeptic, who reads (skeptically) the UFO review OVNI
Presence (O.P.), sent me the following excerpt from an August 92
issue of this review (R.G. = Robert Galley, French minister of
defense in 1974, answering about the Belgian UFO wave):

"O.P. : Can you conceive that the U.S. could allow themselves to send
 their most modern crafts over foreign territory, with the Belgian
 hierarchy ignoring that ?"
"R.G. : Absolutely ! The best proof which I can give is that, some time
 ago, without informing the French authorities, the U.S. based in
 Germany sent a plane to make photos of Pierrelatte (*). We followed
 this plane, and, after its landing on the Ramstein airport, Colonel X
 got back the shots of Pierrelatte. The U.S. had not informed us..."
(*) There is an important military plant of enrichment of uranium at
Pierrelatte (Drome).

What kind of plane could it be ? Surely not an SR-71, which our planes
could not follow (and still can't)...

J. Pharabod

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61280
From: 71160.2356@CompuServe.COM (Larry Krumenaker)
Subject: Ranking of SPACE mailing list

About three weeks ago on the SPACE list, someone was quoting a source on the
relative traffic and rankings of this listserv.  A figure of 88th in
traffic(?) was given.  Unfortunately I did not clip the message and I would
like to know the source of the rankings list.  If anybody still has that
discussion on their disk or knows the source (or is the poster himself!)
I'd appreciate getting that reference.  Being on the road I have temporarily
unsubscribed to the list to cut down mail box stuffing <g> so please reply
via e-mail to lek@aip.org OR 71160.2356@compuserve.com or I won't get your
answer!

Larry Krumenaker
Odyssey Magazine


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61281
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
here?

Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
horrendous expense?

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61282
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: McElwaine's secret messages

Robert MacElwaine sez (again!);

>                     LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
> etc.

OK, I got it.  Actually, these message of MacElwaine's are coded messages.
Read only the caps, and it all comes clear!:

>               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
>          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
>          this WASTED money?!

>               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
>         location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
>         kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
>         cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
>         with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
>         the "Supercollider"?!
>
>              Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
>         proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
>         named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.

Maybe it's a message telling us what actually happened to the legendary
Larson.  Perhaps it's a warning that one should not expend too much
effort trying to counter MacElwaine's postings.  Who can be sure? :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61283
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

   [re: voyages of discovery...]
   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

If you believe 1492 (the film), Columbus had substantial private
funds.  When Columbus asked the merchant why he put the money in, the
guy said (slightly paraphrased) , "There is Faith, Hope and Charity.
But greater than these is Banking."
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61284
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:

   ...  So how about this?  Give the winning group
   (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
   moratorium on taxes.

You are talking about the bozos who can't even manage in November to
keep promises about taxes made in October, and you expect them to make
(and keep!) a 50-year promise like that?  Your faith in the political
system is much higher than mine.  I wouldn't even begin to expect that
in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
do.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61285
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In <1993Apr27.072512.439@bby.com.au> Gregory N. Bond writes:
>I wouldn't even begin to expect that
>in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
>do.
 Wanna bet ??? You must be too young to remember Bob Askin :-)
Read the Costigan commision report if you want to know about corruption
in OZ.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61286
From: jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons)
Subject: What planets are habitable

I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
simply disallow earth like conditions.

eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.

Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
three factors and how they relate to one another.

Jonathan
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With fearsome eyes and fiery breath the dragon burnt the girl to death
                    -- from "Too Late Saint George"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61287
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

>>>>> On 26 Apr 1993 15:37:32 GMT, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) said:

jfc> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
jfc> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
jfc> rays?

and later...
>>>>> Jim Batka ( JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU ) said

JB> So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
JB> some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
JB> could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
JB> events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
JB> be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
JB> being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.


 0.

 Well, maybe not zero, but very little.  At the typical energies for 
 gamma rays, the Galaxy is effectively transparent. 

 Hans Bloemen had a review article in Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. a few 
 years back in which he discusses this in more depth.
--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61288
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.


In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> 
> >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
> 
> >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
> 
> >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   
> 
. . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
part of the Oort cloud.

Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
isn't a mechanism for the others either.

Keith Harwood.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61289
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>
>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>
   Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
"Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.

   It answered the questions you ask (speculatively, of course), along
with many more that need to be considered in habitability studies:
length of day (for day/night temperature variation, and agricultural
concerns), partial pressures of certain unexpected gasses (ever hear of
xenon narcosis?  neither did I), density of particulates in the atm, and
their composition (ever hear of silicosis?  not much fun), etc.

   Climate isn't a global phenomenon and probably needn't concern you,
but axial tilt ought to.  It plays a large part in determining the
severity of seasonal differences, and a lesser but still significant
part in determining the speed of prevailing winds.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61292
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
>Subject: Re: What planets are habitable
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:38:28 GMT
>In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>>
>>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance

There are people who have adapted to high altitudes in the Andes and in
Tibet. I suspect that it took them several generations to make the
adaptation because Europeans had difficulty making the adaptation. They
had to send the women to a lower altitude when they were pregnant in order
to insure sucessful childbirth.

>>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>>

Another factor you should consider is the X-ray opacity of the atmosphere 
in case of stellar flares, the uv opacity is also important because uv 
radiation can kill or damage microbes, plants, and animals. 

>>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>>

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61293
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Report on redesign team

The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....

Redesign Activities Update -- Following is the weekly status on redesign,
based on information provided by NASA headquarters.

The station Redesign Team (SRT) provided a detailed status report to the
Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 22.  The
day-long meeting was held in ANSER facilities in Crystal City, VA; topics
covered by the SRT included a preliminary mission and goals statement for
the space station; science, technology and engineering research; the
assessment process; and the design approach. Discussions on management
options and operations concepts also were held.

The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:

 Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
said the team is working to define a station that meets cost goals and has
identified three distinct phases of evolution - power station, human tended
and permanent presence. The team will define the minimum capability needed
to achieve each phase, the total cost of each phase and the achievable
capability for budget levels. The A option uses current or simplified
Freedom hardware where cost effective and is considering other existing
systems such as the so-called "Bus-1 spacecraft," the orbiter and Spacelab.

The Power Station Capability could be achieved in 3 flights with Freedom
photo voltaic modules providing 20 kW of power. 30-day Shuttle/Spacelab
missions docked to the power station are assumed for this phase.

Human Tended Capability would be provided by the addition of the U.S.
Common Module Module which adds subsystems and 9 payload racks and docking
ports for ESA and Japanese laboratories. 60-day missions with the orbiter
docked to the station are assumed for this phase. Different
operation/utilization modes are being studied for this phase.

 Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
B activities. Griffin detailed the evolution of the Freedom-derived option,
from initial Research Capability, to Human-Tended Capability, to Permanent
Human Presence Capability, to Two Fault Tolerance, and finally Permanent
Human Capability. Griffin also outlined proposed systems changes to the
baseline program, with minor changes to the Communications and Tracking
system, Crew Health Care System and ECLSS, and a major change to the Data
Management System.

Initial Research Capability would be achieved with 2 flights to 28.5 degree
inclination (3 flights to 51.6 degrees) and consist of an extended duration
orbiter-Spacelab combination docked to a truss segment with 2 photo voltaic
arrays providing 18.75 kW of power.

Human-Tended Capability would be achieved in 6 flights and add truss
segments and the U.S. lab.

Permanent Human Presence Capability would be achieved in 8 flights with two
orbiters providing habitation and assured crew return.

Two Fault Tolerance, achieved in 11 flights, would build out the other
section of truss with another set of PV modules, thermal control and
propulsion systems.

The freedom derived configuration could achieve an International Complete
state with 16 flights.  Three more flights, to bring up the habitat module,
a third PV array and two Assured Crew Return Vehicles (ACRV) would complete
the Permanent Human Capability with International stage.

Griffin told the Redesign Advisory Committee that eliminating hardware
would not, by itself, meet budget guidelines for the Freedom derived
option.  Major reductions or deferrals must occur in other areas including
program management, contractor non-hardware, early utilization and
operations costs, he said.

 Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
and jettisoned after ET separation.

The module, 23 feet in diameter and 92 feet long, would provide 26,000
cubic feet of pressured volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a
centralized passageway.  Seven berthing ports would be located at various
places on the circumference of the module to place the international
modules, and other elements.  This "can" would have two fixed photo voltaic
arrays producing approximately 40 kW of power flying in a solar interial
attitude.

In his closing comments to the Redesign Advisory Committee, Bryan O'Connor
said a design freeze would be established for the 3 options on April 26 so
that detailed costing of the options can begin.  The next meeting with the
Redesign Advisory Committee will be May 3.

Russian Consultants Arrive in U.S. -- A delegation of 16 Russian space
experts arrived in the U.S. on April 21 and briefings to the SRT by members
of the Russian team began on the 22nd.  The group includes Russian Space
Agency General Director Y. M. Koptev, and V. A. Yatsenko, also of the RSA. 
Others on the team include representatives from the Ministry of Defense,
the Design Bureau SALYUT, the Institute of Biomedical Problems, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NPO Energia and TsNIJMASH.  The Russian team
briefed the SRT on environmental control and life support system, docking
systems, the Proton launch vehicle, Mir operations and utilization, and the
Soyuz TM spacecraft.

The Russian consultants are available to the SRT to assess the capabilities
of the Mir space station, and the possible use of Mir and other Russian
capabilities and systems as part of the space station redesign.  They will
be available to the SRT through May 5.

Management and Operations Review Continues --  Work continued in the SRT
subgroups.  The Management Group under Dr. Walt Brooks is working to
develop a family of options that solve the current problems and build a
foundation for the transition to development and operations.  Various
management options have been developed including:

 Lead Center with the Center Director in the programmatic chain of
command.

 Host Center with the Program Manager reporting directly to an Associate
Administrator.

 Skunk Works/Dedicated Program Office with a small dedicated co-located
hand-picked program office.

 Combine Space Station with Shuttle, with the space station becoming an
element of the current program.

 Major Tune Up to Current Organization, with current contracts and
geographical distribution maintained but streamlined.

The Operations Group under Dr. John Cox is building on the work of the
Operations Phase Assessment Team lead by Gene Kranz of NASA-JSC, which had
already begun a comprehensive review of operations and had concluded in its
preliminary results that significant cost reductions are possible.

As part of its work,  the Operations Group has identified teams of agency
experts to develop detailed evaluations of each design in the areas of
assembly and operations, utilization, maintenance and logistics and testing
and ground operations.

What's in the Week Ahead? -- The Design Support Teams will provide a
comprehensive status of their option to the Station Redesign Team on Monday
and Tuesday at which point the design will be "frozen" to begin the
detailed cost assessment.   Also this week, the team will begin preparing
for the next round of discussions with the redesign Advisory Committee, to
be held May 3.

Dr. Shea Steps Down --  Dr. Joe Shea stepped down as director of the
Station Redesign Team on April 22 and Bryan O'Connor will take over the
activities of the team.  Dr. Shea submitted his resignation as assistant
deputy administrator for space station analysis, but will continue to serve
as a special advisory to NASA Administrator Goldin and be available to
consult with the SRT. Mr Goldin accepted the resignation so that a request
from Dr. Shea to reduce his workload could be accommodated.

Key Milestones -- The key dates for the SRT as they are currently being
carried on the schedule are:

April 26
Design Freeze on Options for Costing

April 27
Design Support Team Present Selected Options to SRT

May 3
Status report to Redesign Advisory Committee

May 15
Interim report by Redesign Advisory Committee

June 7
Final report to Redesign Advisory Committee


(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61294
From: jan@vesta.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Jan Vorbrueggen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <C64t8E.6HB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Josh Hopkins) writes:

   Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a 
   perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure 
   that I don't know what that reason is.

Read John le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", "The Honorable Schoolboy"
or "Smiley's People".

	Jan

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61295
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr27.072512.439@bby.com.au>, gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> 
>    ...  So how about this?  Give the winning group
>    (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
>    moratorium on taxes.
> 
> You are talking about the bozos who can't even manage in November to
> keep promises about taxes made in October, and you expect them to make
> (and keep!) a 50-year promise like that?  

We want to give lawyers something to do in the 21st cen., don't we?

>Your faith in the political
> system is much higher than mine.  I wouldn't even begin to expect that
> in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
> do.

Oh I bet you do.  They are probably just better at it than our crooks. :-)

> --
> Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
>    Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
>    Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
> (Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Tom Freebairn | We came.
	      | We saw.
	      | We went home.
		Some early 20th cen. baseball player
		Anybody know who or why? (definitly e-mail stuff.)		

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61298
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Solid state vs. tube/analog

In article <C6479K.6BA.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
|
|Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
|they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
|than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
>"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)
>

Of course,  they then  turn up the REverb, the Gain,  add in the analog
delay line  and the Fuzz box.  I'd think they wouldn't notice the
distortion.   Oh I forgot the phase shifters.

>Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
>mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.


Ah,  but how do they compare to Mechanical systems :-)

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61299
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:

>In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
>  Sorry, you have a _wish_ for an uncluttered night sky, but it
>isn't a right. When you get down to it, you actually have no rights
>that the majority haven't agreed to give you (and them in the process).
>It's a common misconception that being born somehow endows you with
>rights to this that and the other. Sadly this is not true.
>  Now if you want to talk about the responsibility that _should_ go with
>the power to clutter the night sky, then that's a different matter.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

According to this reasoning there are no rights, at least none that I can think 
of....

Let's see.  Do I have a right to unpolluted air?  No, because the majority
drive cars and use goods that create air pollution in the manufacturing process.

Do I have the right to clean water?  I guess not, by the same reasoning.
I could go on with these examples for a long time....

Look at Nazi Germany.  Because of the majority, Jews, homosexuals, blacks,
and others that were different had no rights.  In fact they were terrorized, 
imprisoned, and slaughtered.  In this country did blacks have the right to be
free from slavery?  I guess not, because the majority said that slavery was 
good for them.

I think that a right has a moral imperative.  If a law, imposed by the majority,
is immoral, one should not follow it.  In fact, one should do everything in
his/her power to stop it. Of course, that doesn't mean that I would lose all
common sense to break the law, just because I thought it was immoral.  I pay
my Federal Income Tax even though I am morally opposed to the U.S. Government
taking my money and spending it on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make.  We should _persude_ people 
by logic, pointing out that it is in their self-interest to let all have
equal rights in all aspects of life, including adequate housing, food, and
medical care.  I just happen to think that for a full life the aesthetic of
beauty and joy is also necessary.  That is why I consider an uncluttered
night sky a right.

Have you ever been out in the desert, away from local lights, and most people?
The sky is dark and transparent.  The Milky Way is ablaze with more detail
than you thought possible.  The beauty and wonder takes your breath away.

Now imagine you live in the worst ghetto, say in L.A. Due to light pollution
you have never seen a dark sky.  You might in fact never, not in your whole
life, ever see the majesty of the night sky.  Every where around you, you see
squalor, and through your life runs a thread of dispair. What is there to live
for?  

I admit these two scenarios are extreme examples, but I have seen both.
I, for one, need dreams and hopes, and yes, beauty, as a reason for living.
That is why I consider an uncluttered night sky a right.

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferfish Observatory          <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61300
From: rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
|> If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
|> then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
|> here?
|> 

Reboost may not be a problem, if they have enough fuel.  If they don't do a 
reboost this time, they will definitely have to do one on the next servicing
mission.  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
with that much weight in the payload.

|> Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
|> horrendous expense?
|> 

of course that is a concern too, and the loss of science during the time
that it is on the ground.  plus a fear that if it comes down, some
big-wig might not allow it to go back up.  but the main concern, I
believe is the danger of the landing.  Just to add another bad vibe,
they also increase the risk of damaging an instrument.  Finally, 
this is a chance for NASA astronanuts to prove they could build and
service a space station.  Hubble was designed for in flight servicing.

bringing the telescope down, to my understanding, was considered
even very recently, but all these factors contribute to the 
decision to do it the way it was planned in the beginning.

|> Gruss,
|> Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
|> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
|> bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

ROB
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |
| Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     |
===========================================================================

Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course 
	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines. 
	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful
	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61301
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
>Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
>

My apologies if this is a re-post - I submitted it on Friday, but 
got a message that my post might not have gone out.  Considering 
the confusing spitting contest over 'rights', (there are TOO 
inalienable rights damn it!  The majority can be just as destructive 
of liberty as a despot), I suspect that my post did not get out 
of my site.    (I ain't saying that dark skies are included in these 
rights, although we can only preserve any rights by exercising them.) 



Anyway, here are my thoughts on this: 


I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly 
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for 
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I 
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may 
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred - 
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars 
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and 
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time 
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man. 
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.  
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there 
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief 
in an afterlife.  

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks 
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light 
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people 
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating 
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or 
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.  
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky. 

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live 
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport 
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The 
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists 
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped 
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life 
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels 
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains 
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing, 
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed 
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80 
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters 
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of 
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect. 

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't 
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever - 
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch 
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer, 
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.  
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at 
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.  

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage 
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at 
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the 
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it 
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could 
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky 
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that 
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid, 
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 


(P.S. added Tuesday - this again is not a rights/vs./reality tome, 
just a warning that someone into destroying beauty had better know 
that other people may not accept it without a complaint.)  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61302
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes:
=Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
=assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
=always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
=If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
=a "NO-OP" command.

Using your argument, the NOOP operation in a computer isn't a NOOP, since it
causes the PC to be incremented.

=Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
=nothing to do with jet propulsion.

Of course, the complaint comes from someone who hasn't a clue as to what he's
talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61303
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?

The forces and accelerations involved in doing a little bit of orbital
maneuvering with HST aboard are much smaller than those involved in
reentry, landing, and re-launch.  The OMS engines aren't very powerful;
they don't have to be.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61304
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <1993Apr26.222659.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
>discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
>such..

Why bother with a new newsgroup?  If you want to discuss the subject,
*start discussing it*.  If there is enough traffic to annoy the rest of
us, we will let you know... and *then* it will be time for a new newsgroup.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61305
From: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Littlefield)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?

In article <15657.2bd7de55@cpva.saic.com>, thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes:
[ stuff deleted ]
|> 
|> 
|>     This leads to the more general question: do yet other people than 
|> the US, Russia, and Japan do space surveillance, and if so, how and 
|> why? 
|> 
|> Allen Thomson              SAIC                        McLean, VA, USA

The French SPOT is an example that comes to mind.  Although the
company (name escapes me at the moment) sells images world-wide, you
can bet your last dollar (franc??) that the French gov't gets first
dibs.

I remember a few years ago (about the time SPOT was launched), I
was speaking to my Dad (an USAF officer) about this and that, and I
happend to mention SPOT (I think we were talking about technology
utilization).  He just about went ballistic.  He wanted to know how I
knew about SPOT and just what I knew.  I guess that space surveillance
is such a sensitive topic in the Air Force that he couldn't believe
that I would read about such a system in the popular press (ie. AV week).

mark, 
-- 
=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield              Intelligent Systems Department
internet: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov 
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences 
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MC C-19            
          Houston, TX 77058-3711
====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61306
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: Tsniimach Enterprise

From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
> 
> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
> 
> 7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
> [..]
> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
> establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection 
> of spacecraft and which has participated in the development of 
> the Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
> facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 

If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow,
it is in fact the ex-East Prussian Konigsberg, now a Russian
enclave on the Baltic coast.  It is served by ships and rail, 
and the intrepid traveller in Europe would find it accessible 
and might even want to try to arrange a tour (??).

* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

P.S. I'm quite glad that a couple of people stated quite eloquently 
     the aesthetic/natural objections to the space billboard.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61307
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

   I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
just wanted to add a point.

   The whole question of "a right to a dark sky" revolves around the
definition of a right.  Moral rights and natural rights are all well and
good, but as far as I can see, a right is whatever you or someone
representing you can enforce.  In most civilizations, the government or
the church (or both) defines what the rights of the citizens are, and
then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have
comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right
to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the
U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To
keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law
and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague,
something I know little about.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61308
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?

The European Space Agency has involvement with remote earth 
observation, and I presume this includes surveillance (optical etc.).
So it's not just the US/USSR(ex) who are in the game.

But what *is* the game? What can be done with space observation?
The military functions of missile spotting, troop spotting etc. are well
documented, but what about anything else?

The biggest eg I can think of is to get a  metal sensing sat over a
paying country and scan their territory for  precious metals.

More importantly, if radar can spot water vapour (clouds), presumably
a radar based sat will be capable of spotting rivers,open water and 
*underground water* from space. This would be a positive life saver
for African or other drought affected countries. Implementing a
clean water and irrigation program would be of imense benifit to such
countries and should cut down mortalities considerably.

So how about it? Is there a charity or government agency that would
pay for a third world country to have their minerals and water deposits
mapped?

Or is this still sci-fi?

Mail replies would be great.

Thought for the day: Thermal energy needs water to make steam so sstick
it in the ocean!


-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61309
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

In Space Digest V16 #487,
hathaway@stsci.edu writes:

...about the protests over proposals to put a giant billboard into orbit,

>I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
>practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for research
>activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I would complain about
>is rooted in aesthetics. 

>Regards, 
>Wm. Hathaway 
>Baltimore MD 

Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

Regular orbiting spacecraft are not the same in this respect, since they are
more like abstract entities, but a billboard in space would be like a beer
can somebody had thrown on the side of the road: just trash.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of
  The Center for Space Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
   UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER or greer@utdcss.utdallas.edu
"Let machines multiply, doing the work of many,
               But let the people have no use for them." - Lao Tzu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61310
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Come on, this is sci.space.  An orbital billboard won't
do any permanent damage; in a few years it will reenter
and probably hit Los Angles anyway :-)

The boost to space commerce orbital advertising might
provide might speed the day it is possible for those with a 
yen for dark skies to get some really dark skies beyond
the dust producing the zodiacal light. 

Now, if they wanted to paint the CocaCola symbol on the
moon in lampblack, that would give me pause.  It would
be very difficult to reverse such a widespread application
of pigments.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61311
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:



   In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
   > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
   part of the Oort cloud.

   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
   isn't a mechanism for the others either.

What on Earth is the "gravisphere"?
Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter
had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they 
detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors
do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances.
In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would
see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.

_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
least it was a good try...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61312
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: temperature of the dark sky

Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
(night) sky as seen from space?

Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is substantially
higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like stars and the
zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61313
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Words from the Chairman of Boeing on SSTO type stuff


  Yesterday, I went to the Boeing shareholders meeting.  It was a bit shorter
than I expected.  Last year (when the stock was first down), they made a big
presentation on the 777, and other programs.  This year, it was much more
bare-bones.

In any case, I wanted to ask a question that the board of directors would
hear, and so I got there early, and figured that If I didn't get to the mike,
maybe they would read mine off of a card, and so I wrote it down, and handed it
in.

After the meeting started, Mr. Shrontz said that he would only answer written
questions, in order to be fair to the people in the overflow room that only
had monitors downstairs.  Naturally, I was crushed.

So, when question and answer time came, I was suprised to find my question
being read and answered.  Admittedly near the end of the ones that he took.
Presumably getting there early, and getting the question in early made all
the difference.

So, on to the substance. The question was 

Is Boeing looking at anything BEYOND the high speed Civil Transport, such
as a commercial space launch system, and if not, how will Boeing compete
with the reusable single stage to orbit technology presently being developed
by Mcdonnell Douglass?

Well, he read it without a hitch, and without editing, with impressed me,
then he answered it very quickly treating it as a two part question, last
part first.

This is to the best of my recollection what he said.

As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have a better
answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some of our customers 
about that.  As far as commercialization, that is a long ways off.  The High
speed Civil Transport is about as far out as our commercial planning goes at
this point.

So, this tells me that Boeing still considers space to be a non-commercial
arena, and for the most part this is true, however it also tells me that 
they consider there to be enough money in building space launchers for them
to persue work on their own.

Now, I do have a friend on the spacelifter program at boeing.  Actually,
this is a mis-nomer, as there is no spacelifter contract for the work that this
guy is doing, however, he is doing work in preparation of a proposal for space
lifter contracts.  He won't tell me what he is doing, but maybe this is where
the TSTO action is taking place at boeing.  At the very minimum, the chairman
of the board of boeing said that they have an approach in mind, and they are
trying to do something with it.  

Anybody know anything further?
Is this really news?
Does this threaten further work on DC-? ?

                    John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61314
From: hillig@U.Chem.LSA.UMich.EDU (Kurt Hillig)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <C65o4t.A7o@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>(night) sky as seen from space?
>
>Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
>Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
>after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
>disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
>My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is substantially
>higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like stars and the
>zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.
>-- 
>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

It's not quite what you were asking, but a few years ago I helped some EE
remote sensing people run some experiments on the microwave emmissivity of
ice; they used the sky for a background calibration source.  They said that
from Earth's surface the sky looks like a 60K blackbody.

-- 
     Dr. Kurt Hillig
   Dept. of Chemistry      I always tell the    phone (313)747-2867
 University of Michigan     absolute truth    X.500 khillig@umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1055    as I see it.    hillig@chem.lsa.umich.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61315
From: lcm@spl1.spl.loral.com (Luciana C. Messina)
Subject:  Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


Another factor against bringing the HST back to Earth is risk of contamination.

Luciana C. Messina
lcm@spl1.spl.loral.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61316
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Space Calendar - 04/27/93

     The Space Calendar is updated monthly and the latest copy is available
at ames.arc.nasa.gov in the /pub/SPACE/FAQ.  Please send any updates or
corrections to Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov).  Note that launch
dates are subject to change.

     The following person made contributions to this month's calendar:

        o Dennis Newkirk - Soyuz TM-18 Launch Date (Dec 1993).


                          =========================
                               SPACE CALENDAR
                               April 27, 1993
                          =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

April 1993
* Apr 29 - Astra 1C Ariane Launch

May 1993
  May ?? - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
  May ?? - Radcal Scout Launch
  May ?? - GPS/PMQ Delta II Launch
* May ?? - Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) Conestoga Launch
* May 01 - Astronomy Day
* May 01-2 - Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse
  May 04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again
  May 04 - Eta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 21:00 UT, Solar Lon: 44.5 deg)
* May 13 - Air Force Titan 4 Launch
* May 18 - STS-57, Endeavour, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R)
* May 20 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbiter Launch
  May 21 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from North America & Northern Europe
  May 25 - Magellan, Aerobraking Begins

June 1993
  Jun ?? - Temisat Meteor 2 Launch
  Jun ?? - UHF-2 Atlas Launch
  Jun ?? - NOAA-I Atlas Launch
  Jun ?? - First Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned
  Jun ?? - Hispasat 1B & Insat 2B Ariane Launch
  Jun 04 - Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America
  Jun 14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan)
  Jun 22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy
  Jun 30 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite

July 1993
  Jul ?? - MSTI-II Scout Launch
  Jul ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
  Jul 01 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet)
  Jul 08 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet)
  Jul 14 - Soyuz TM-16 Landing (Soviet)
* Jul 20-21 - Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse
  Jul 21 - Soyuz TM-17 Landing (Soviet)
  Jul 28 - S. Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 19:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 125.8 degrees)
  Jul 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday

August 1993
  Aug ?? - ETS-VI (Engineering Test Satellite) H2 Launch (Japan)
  Aug ?? - GEOS-J Launch
  Aug ?? - Landsat 6 Launch
  Aug ?? - ORBCOM FDM Pegasus Launch
* Aug 08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus 2 Launch (Atmospheric Probes)
  Aug 09 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-4)
  Aug 12 - N. Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 07:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 139.7 degrees)
  Aug 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 15:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 140.1 degrees)
  Aug 24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI)
  Aug 25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2)
  Aug 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby

September 1993
  Sep ?? - SPOT-3 Ariane Launch
  Sep ?? - Tubsat Launch
  Sep ?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch

October 1993
  Oct ?? - Intelsat 7 F1 Ariane Launch
  Oct ?? - SLV-1 Pegasus Launch
  Oct ?? - Telstar 4 Atlas Launch
  Oct 01 - SeaWIFS Launch
  Oct 22 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           208.7 degrees)

November 1993
  Nov ?? - Solidaridad/MOP-3 Ariane Launch
  Nov 03 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Launch (Mercury & Venus Flyby Mission)
  Nov 03 - S. Taurid Meteor Shower
  Nov 04 - Galileo Exits Asteroid Belt
  Nov 06 - Mercury Transits Across the Sun, Visible from Asia, Australia, and
           the South Pacific
* Nov 08 - Mars Observer, Mapping Orbit Established
  Nov 10 - STS-60, Discovery, SPACEHAB-2
  Nov 13 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from Southern Hemisphere
  Nov 15 - Wilhelm Herschel's 255th Birthday
  Nov 17 - Leonids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 13:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           235.3 degrees)
* Nov 22 - Mars Observer, Mapping Begins
  Nov 28-29 - Total Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America & South America

December 1993
  Dec ?? - GOES-I Atlas Launch
  Dec ?? - NATO 4B Delta Launch
  Dec ?? - TOMS Pegasus Launch
  Dec ?? - DirectTv 1 & Thiacom 1 Ariane Launch
  Dec ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch
  Dec ?? - STEP-2 Pegasus Launch
* Dec ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Launch (Soviet)
  Dec 02 - STS-61, Endeavour, Hubble Space Telescope Repair
  Dec 04 - SPEKTR-R Launch (Soviet)
* Dec 05 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 10 Jupiter Flyby
  Dec 08 - Mars Observer, Mars Equinox
  Dec 14 - Geminids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 262.1 degrees)
  Dec 20 - Mars Observer, Solar Conjunction Begins
  Dec 23 - Ursids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 01:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 271.3 degrees)

January 1994
  Jan 03 - Mars Observer, End of Solar Conjunction
  Jan 24 - Clementine Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter, Asteroid Flyby Mission)

February 1994
  Feb ?? - SFU Launch
  Feb ?? - GMS-5 Launch
  Feb 05 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Venus Flyby
  Feb 08 - STS-62, Columbia, U.S. Microgravity Payload (USMP-2)
  Feb 15 - Galileo's 430th Birthday
  Feb 21 - Clementine, Lunar Orbit Insertion
  Feb 25 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 6 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)

March 1994
  Mar ?? - TC-2C Launch
  Mar 05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Jupiter flyby
  Mar 14 - Albert Einstein's 115th Birthday
  Mar 27 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 7 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)
  Mar 29 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10, 1st Mercury Flyby
* Mar 31 - Galaxy 1R Delta 2 Launch

April 1994
* Apr ?? - Equator S Scout Launch
* Apr 04 - Mars Observer, Perihelion
* Apr 14 - STS-59, Atlantis, SRL-1
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61317
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: $1bil space race ideas/moon base on the cheap.

Although the $1 billion scheme is a fantasy (it's an old canard in the space
business called "trolling for billionaires"), there is a good chance that a
much smaller program ($65 million) will pass the 103rd Congress. This is the
Back to the Moon bill, put together by the people who passed the Launch
Services Purchase Act. The bill would incent private companies to develop
lunar orbiters, with vendors selected on the basis of competitive bidding.
There is an aggregate cap on the bids of $65 million.
 
Having a single rich individual paying billions for lunar missions is probably
worse than having the government bankroll a $65 million program, as the Delta
Clipper program has shown (DC-X was funded by SDIO at $59 million). We have a
clear chance of making a lunar mission happen in this decade - as opposed to
simply wishing for our dreams to come true. Please support the Back to the
Moon bill.
 
For more information, please send E-mail with your U.S. postal service
address.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61318
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr27.185721.15511@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Now, if they wanted to paint the CocaCola symbol on the
>moon in lampblack, that would give me pause...

Wouldn't bother me.  I'd laugh.  It wouldn't work -- the surface of the
Moon is *already* pretty dark, and the contrast would be so poor you
couldn't possibly see it.  The only reason the Moon looks bright is that
it's in bright sunlight against an otherwise-dark sky.  Evidently Heinlein
didn't know that...
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61319
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
> just wanted to add a point.
> 
.. 
> then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
> provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
> considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have

These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH??? 
All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent 
of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper.  Civilized gov'mnt 
is not an autonomous computer program, it's interactive.  The Constitution 
was made by the people and can be trashed by us - it ain't no sacred 
scripture from which rights flow.  Our 'rights' come from our souls. 
And I sure didn't see any request to vote on trashing the sky.  
Again - my opinion only - we keep our rights by using them, not going to 
some court.  

> comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right
> to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the
> U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To
> keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law
> and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague,
> something I know little about.
> 
> Doug Loss
> loss@husky.bloomu.edu


Most gracious regards, 
WHH 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61320
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <C63vvG.4J9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the
>prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can
>spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.

Fine. I'll buy from George. GEORGEEE!!!!

That assumes I can't weasel out a cooperative venture of some sort (cut me a
break on the launcher, I'll cut you in on the proceeds if it works).  Only the
government pays higher-than-list price. 

>What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
>investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
>the prize is just the icing on the cake.

Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD line
of aerospace products. 

If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better
than buying at "list price."  Does anyone REALLY know the profit margins built
in to the Titan?  C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
or that... 

>I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough
>return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current
>US launchers.  

Oh please.  How much of a profit do you want?  Pulling $100-150 million after
all is said and done wouldn't be too shabby.  Not to mention the other goodies
I'll collect in:

	a)  Movie & TV rights (say $100-150 million conservatively)
	b)  Advertising       ("Look Mommie, they're drinking Coke!")
	c)  Intangibles	      (Name recognization, experience & data 
				acculumated)

>You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch
>system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is
>of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.

If you want lean, fine.  A $500 million prize would be more than adequate for a
prize.

Maybe Wales would be kind enough to define what a company would consider
a decent profit.

If you want R&D done, you'll have to write in R&D clauses.  I suppose you could
make it a SBIR set-aside :)  



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61321
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93117.24999999  .00043819  00000-0  13174-3 0    47
2 22640  28.4694 264.3224 0004988 261.3916 194.3250 15.90699957   104
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61322
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>   [re: voyages of discovery...]
>   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

>If you believe 1492 (the film), Columbus had substantial private
>funds.  When Columbus asked the merchant why he put the money in, the
>guy said (slightly paraphrased) , "There is Faith, Hope and Charity.
>But greater than these is Banking."
>--

Heck, some of his ships were loaners. One was owned by a Basque...
(you know, one of those groups that probably crossed the Atlantic
_before_ Columbus came along).

>Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
>   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
>   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
>(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61323
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
>from?
>
>But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
>everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

The SEI. Software Engineering Institute, a DoD funded part of Carnegie Mellon
University.  You can read about part of it in Ed Yourdon's The Decline and
Fall of the American Programmer (Yourdon Press).

Just passing thru.....

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61324
From: rostroff@watson.princeton.edu (robert ostroff)
Subject: Comet Launch Date

Hello out there,
If your familiar with the COMET program then this concerns you.
COMET is scheduled to be launched from Wallops Island sometime in June.
Does anyone know if an official launch date has been set?

Thanks,
Rob

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61325
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <1rkb56INN9hs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
>>investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
>>the prize is just the icing on the cake.
>
>Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD
>line of aerospace products. 

I think you've got an off-by-one error in your memory. :-)  MM bought the
satellite-building side of GE.  E, not D.  MM and GD are still competitors.

>If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better
>than buying at "list price."

Better, yes, but we're not talking order of magnitude.  (Especially if you
want to use Titan IV, which belongs to the USAF, not MM.)

>... C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
>or that... 

Sure, you can get a heavylift launcher fairly cheap if you do it privately
rather than as a gummint project.  But we're still talking about something
that will cost nine digits per launch, unless you can guarantee a large
market to justify volume production.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61326
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Space surveillance: what I really meant

      Thanks to the people who have answered here and in email to my 
question about which countries engage in space surveillance. 
Unfortunately, I apparently didn't make the meaning of the message 
clear, since most replies have addressed satellite reconnaissance, 
rather than space surveillance 

     What I meant was _not_ which countries use satellites to look at 
the Earth (satellite reconnaissance) , but _was_ which countries have 
programs to detect and track (i.e., determine the orbital elements of) 
satellites as they pass overhead (space surveillance). 

    The US uses missile-defense radars, supplemented by a fascinating 
quasi-radar operated by the Navy, to do this for satellites in LEO, and 
electrooptical systems for objects at altitudes above 5,000 km or so. 
The FEE, I understand, does much the same thing. 

    Amateur satellite observers use eyeballs, binoculars, stopwatches 
and PCs for objects out to around 1500 km, enabling them to keep track 
of satellites for which, ah, official element sets aren't available. 
See the fascinating books by Desmond King-Hele for details, as well as 
the files in the molczan directory on kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov.  The 
material posted in my previous message suggests that Japan engages in 
optical and radar space surveillance to a modest degree, and it may be 
that other countries do also. 

    Which was the question I meant to ask: who are they, how do they do 
it, and why do they do it?


Allen Thomson                     SAIC                        McLean, VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, yes: I don't speak for SAIC.  


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61327
From: madison@wam.umd.edu (Rob Shearman Jr.)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions


Excerpt From: rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye)

:Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
:
:1.	Calculators
:2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
:3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

                    Don't forget Tang!  ::smile::

 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
    Robert M. Shearman, Jr.  University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
            E-Mail: madison@wam.umd.edu   "WILL WORK FOR CHOCOLATE"
 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61328
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: U.K.: see Mir in evening skies!

Astronomy & Space magazine's UK telephone newsline carries the times to
see the Russian Space Station Mir which will be visible every EVENING (some
time between 9 o'clock and midnight) from April 27 to May 7. It's about as
bright as Jupiter at its best. There are two cosmonuats on board.

For the time to watch, tel. 0891-88-19-50 (48p/min peak 36p/min all other
times, but prediction is at start of the weekly message so it only costs a
few pence).

E-mail reports of sightings would be appreciated: give lat/long and UT (a
few seconds accuracy if possible) when it passes ABOVE or BELOW any bright
star (say brighter than mag. 3), planet or Moon.

With Moon in evening sky also, note that from somewhere in U.K. Mir will
pass in front of the Moon each night! Please alert local clubs to the
telephone newsline, and general public as Mir can cause quite a stir!

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61329
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Tsniimach Enterprise

In article <C67Hv9.7nG.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
>From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
>> 
>> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
>> establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection 
>> of spacecraft and which has participated in the development of 
>> the Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
>> facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 
>
>If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow,

Correction, and some more info: The Kaliningrad that Mr. Larrison
writes about is indeed near Moscow. I've read that it may also be known by
the name Podlipk, and is a short distance from Zvezdny Gorodok (Star 
City) and the Cosmonaut Training Center there. I read that the Tsniimach
(Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building, est. 1961) 
Enterprise was also responsible for creating the NKIK (Ground Command and 
Measurement Complex) including the Kaliningrad Flight Control Center
which has controlled all Soviet/Russian manned spaceflights since its
completion in 1973. However, it appears to have been a part of the 
Ministry of General Machine Building which was not part of the military
(Ministry of Defense) but would have been a part of the military-industrial
complex. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61330
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: U.K.: See Mir in Evening skies - tell friends!

Astronomy & Space magazine's UK telephone newsline carries the times to
see the Russian Space Station Mir which will be visible every EVENING (some
time between 9 o'clock and midnight) from April 27 to May 7. It's about as
bright as Jupiter at its best. There are two cosmonuats on board.

For the time to watch, tel. 0891-88-19-50 (48p/min peak 36p/min all other
times, but prediction is at start of the weekly message so it only costs a
few pence).

E-mail reports of sightings would be appreciated: give lat/long and UT (a
few seconds accuracy if possible) when it passes ABOVE or BELOW any bright
star (say brighter than mag. 3), planet or Moon.

With Moon in evening sky also, note that from somewhere in U.K. Mir will
pass in front of the Moon each night! Please alert local clubs to the
telephone newsline, and general public as Mir can cause quite a stir!

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

P.S.: Mir seen right on time April 28th, passed just above Jupiter. Brighter
than Arcturus but dimmer than Jupiter (not one of its highest passes!).

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61331
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.185206.3501@news.arc.nasa.gov> moses@pan.arc.nasa.gov (julie moses) writes:
>...radiation field has been measured and modeled by various groups.  If I
>remember things correctly, the models involved contributions from three
>different BB sources, so there's no obvious "temperature" of background
>radiation in our local area...

Indeed, the sky doesn't look much like a black body if you look carefully
enough; in particular, its temperature at radio frequencies is quite a
bit higher than you would see from a black body.  Morgan&Gordon's fat
"Communications Satellite Handbook" has a graph of sky temperature vs.
wavelength, in fact, for communications design.

However, in terms of energy content, the RF frequencies are negligible.
For thermal purposes, at very large distances from the Sun the sky
looks like a black body at 3.5K (Allen, "Astrophysical Quantities").
I haven't found a number for non-large distances, since solar radiation
tends to be something you can't just ignore :-), but M&G says "about 4K"
in a brief discussion of why solar radiation dominates the problem.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61332
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)

          
          
          (Book Review):
          
          
          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North 
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, 
          hardcover. 
          

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to 
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries. 
          
               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged 
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.  
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is 
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988). 
          
               Most books and journal articles on the subject of 
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial 
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by 
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except 
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.  
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical 
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual 
          validity. 
          
               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor 
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State 
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books 
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the 
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements 
          they contain. 
          
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical 
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE, 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of 
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and 
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of 
          space and time: 
          
               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME. 
          
               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN. 
          
               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a 
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic 
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the 
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was 
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with 
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including 
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959 
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, 
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They 
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And 
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation 
          ready for those also. 
          
               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE 
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the 
          sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists, 
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter, 
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure), 
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass 
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in 
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be 
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very 
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles, 
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc., 
          used to maintain them. 
          
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.  
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from 
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters, 
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that 
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in 
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy 
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to 
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life 
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and 
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of 
          SINGLE stars. 
          
               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according 
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have 
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies 
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT 
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME). 
          
               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against 
          observations that contradict their theories would find 
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an 
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY 
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the 
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray 
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from 
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any 
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional 
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray 
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER 
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic 
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a 
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed 
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE 
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the 
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly 
          at random. 
          
               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from 
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and 
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted 
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the 
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book 
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann, 
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if 
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars 
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains 
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are 
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists, 
          astronomers, and astrophysicists. 


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (Larson's BOOKS). 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED. 

          
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
                    


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61333
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Long term Human Missions

Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight
to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.

So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk
about it; I shall.

I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources
to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate
on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent 
as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and 
probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands
the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence
of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.

I believe that we as a group have the responsibility to not only
communicate amongst ourselves, but also with others through print media.

A well-orchestrated and technically oriented analysis of life science
variables required to support long-duration spaceflight (like long
expenditions to the moon or Mars) would be entertaining and educational
to the general public.  The objective of such an effort would be to 
compile resources and publications from accepted scientific and technical
journals which would address each major life science area.  In addition,
ideas for further research and development could be put forward for
the general public to ponder...allowing the general public to take
part in the excitement of exploration.

Individuals interested should be willing to devote an hour per week
to running literature searches and finding journal articles.  In addition,
we need to obtain the assistance of personnel from within the halls
of NASA and industry.

I have appreciated the positive responses to date and I am personally
eager to start this project.  Perhaps we could start with debate regarding
how best to grade the viability of various technologies for application
to spaceflight.

ken

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61334
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
>but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
>to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
>pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.
> 

Well, I'll avoid your question for now (got some learnin' to do) with a
promise to come back with more info when I can find it.  I _do_ know that
BATSE is the primary instrument in the development of the all-sky map of
long-term sources.  Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
any help.

Speaking of GRO, the net-world probably was happy to see that the preps
for orbit adjust appear to be going well.  Our branch guy who's helping
out says that things have gone smoothly with the iso-valve preps and the
burns will take place in mid-June.

Anyway, I'm off to find out more.  'Be back when I get some info.

David W. @ GSFC
"I don't know nuthin' 'bout measurin' no Gamma Rays"
_Gone with the Wind_, paraphrased

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61336
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky


henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?

     You'll find that in Allen, C.W., "Astrophysical Quantities", Athlone
Press, Dover, NH, 3rd edition, pp. 268-269 (1973).  To the accuracy it can
be calculated (see specific references in Allen about how it is
calculated), the temperature is 3 degrees K.

     Lots of people have remarked on this temperature.  The first may have
been in Eddington's book, "Internal Constitution of Stars", Ch. 13 (1926;
reprinted 1986), where he gives the "temperature of space" as 3 degrees.

     The source of this temperature is the radiation of starlight.

> My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is
> substantially higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like
> stars and the zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.

     To the accuracy of measurement, it's the same temperature.  Some of us
think this may not be a coincidence.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61337
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
|much energy in one second? 
>                                                -jeremy


big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61338
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.


Well, I seem to have struck an  interesting discussion off.  Given that I
am not an astrophysicist  or nuclear physicist,  i'll have to boil it
down a bit.

1)  ALl the data on bursts to date,  shows a smooth random distribution.

2)  that means they aren't concentrated in  galactic cores, our or someone
elses.

3) If the distribution is smooth,  we are either seeing some  ENORMOUSLY
large phenomena  scattered at the edge of the universe  said phenomena
being subject to debate almost as vioent as the phenomena
	OR
we are seeing some phenomena  out at like the Oort cloud,  but then it needs
some potent little energy source,  that isn't detectable  by any other
current methods.

4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

5)  the bursts seem to bright to be something like black hole quanta or
super string  impacts or something like that.

So everyone is watching the data and arguing like mad in the meanwhile.

what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.

Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.   

Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.

Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
just a little speculative thinking folks.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61339
From: u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

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

>In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:



>   In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>   > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

>   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
>   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
>   part of the Oort cloud.

>   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
>   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
>   isn't a mechanism for the others either.

>What on Earth is the "gravisphere"?
>Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter
>had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they 
>detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors
>do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances.
>In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would
>see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.

>_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
>no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
>to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
>"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
>by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
>least it was a good try...

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
>*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

	Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.
Andrew Walker

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61340
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
|I say:
|What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
|would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
|at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
|would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.


Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to
sci.space.aesthetics.

Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
ruin the night sky.  

Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
include onobstructed air space.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61341
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr28150743@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   This does not propose a _mechanism_ for GRBs in the Oort (and, no,
   anti-matter annihilation does not fit the spectra at least as far
   as I understand annihilation spectra...). Big difference.
   That's ignoring the question of how you fit a distribution
   to the Oort distribution when the Oort distribution is not well
   known - in particular comet aphelia (which are not well known)
   are not a good measure of the Oort cloud distribution...

Merging neutron stars is at least a mechanism with about the right
energy, except it doesn't explain why there is no apparent correlation
with galaxies or galaxy structure, there is no mechanism for getting
all the energy out in gamma rays (with any significant amount of
baryons around there will be a lot of pair production, which makes a
plasma, which thermalizes the energy), it has trouble generating
enough energy to explain the most powerful bursts (10^52-53 ergs), it
happens too fast compared to the burst duration, and it is hard to
make tight-binaries of neutron stars.

Another cosmological mechinism is the catalytic conversion of a
neutron star to a strange star or the merger of two strange stars, but
that uses pretty far-out physics.

My point is that we don't have a good mechanism at any distance, so
GRB's are likely to be happening by an unknown mechanism, so we can't
rule out the Oort cloud.  What would be the spectrum of an event which
converts a comet to strange matter?  The spectra for primordial black
holes eating comets and antimatter comets colliding with matter comets
aren't quite right, but perhaps there is an unusual mechanism which
modifies the spectrum.  The energy matches very well for both of these
mechanisms.  According to Trevor Weeks, if the "Tunguska Meteorite"
was a mini-black hole collision with the earth, then there are likely
to be enough mini-black holes around that the rate for BH-comet
collisions matches the GRB rate well.

The fact that we don't know the distribution of comets in the Oort
cloud isn't a reason to rule them out; it makes it harder to rule them
out.  The point of the cited paper was that if we assume they got the
right distribution for the Oort cloud, it is hard but not impossible
to match that up with the distribution of GRB's.  If they got the
wrong distribution for the Oort cloud, they can't constrain any Oort-
cloud GRB's at all.

Executive summary: we don't know enough to rule out out the Oort
cloud.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61342
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu>, kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
> In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:
> 
>>Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
>>of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
>>determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
>>of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
>>give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
>>any help.
> 
> But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
> three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
> an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.
> Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors
> and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have
> any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to
> determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small 
> component to the positional error.  
> 
> Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
> require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
> cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
> now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
> that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).
> If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to 
> have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline.
> 
> The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and
> watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination
> when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from.
> 
> -Kevin
        Batse alone isn't always used to determine position.  WHen a
particularly bright burst occurs, There are a couple of other detectors that
catch it going off.  Pioneer 10 or 11 is the one I'm getting at here.  This
puppy is far enough away, that if a bright burst happens nearby, the huge
annulus created by it will hopefully intersect the line or general circle given
by BATSE, and we can get a moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3
degrees. That is the closest anyone has ever gotten with it.  
        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites. 
THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1
alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

        We decided against it.
                                                        -jeremy


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61343
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
>cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
>they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
>an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
>tilt  motor  fix.
>

	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
bay.

>pat



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61344
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes:
	   Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
   see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.

That's a very good point.  Perhaps none of the nearby stars have Oort
clouds?  Alpha-centauri is a multiple-star system; you wouldn't expect
an Oort cloud in it.  What's the nearest single-star that is likely to
have a planetary system?

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61345
From:  svn@aoibs.msk.su (Vladimir )
Subject: New inexpensive method for determining ore & oil locations


        Dear gentlemen!

The firm called "INTERBUSINESS,LTD" offers quite inexpensive
method to determine ore & oil locations all over the world.
In this method used data got from space satellites. Being
in your office and using theese data you can get a good statis-
tical prognosis of locations mentioned above.

        This prognosis could be done for any part of the world!
If you're interested in details please send E-mail:

        svn@aoibs.msk.su

        Sushkov Vladimir,
        Moscow, Russia.



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61346
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?

The temperature of intergalactic space (or intercluster or 
intersupercluster space) would be very, very close to the microwave 
background temperature, 2.73 kelvins.  I recall that in interstellar 
space in our neighborhood of the galaxy it's something like 4 K.

Is that what you were looking for?


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!apple!uuwest!max max@west.darkside.com  __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N  121 53 W /  \
If you like strategic games of interstellar conquest, ask about UNIVERSE! \__/
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  All things that are, are lights. -)(-

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61347
From: richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

 (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?
>
> Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
> Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
> after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
> disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.

   Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
radiation field?"

   If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
can range from 40K to 150K.  You might look in a conference proceedings
"Interstellar Processes", ed. D. J. Hollenbach and H. A. Thronson, Jr.,
published in 1987.  Try the articles by Tielens et al., Seab, and 
Black.

   Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association,
I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so 
varied.

   I hope this is what you were looking for....

-- 
-----                                                    Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."    richmond@astro.princeton.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61348
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions
From: ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul)

In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>
>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>
>1.	Calculators
>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
a good thing.

If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
and of itself.
--
Paul

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61349
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1993Apr26.155915.8998@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:

   I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the
   event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
   some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
   could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
   events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
   be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
   being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.

I believe the problem with this theory is that we see gamma-ray
sources at that energy range and their energy doesn't seem to be
significantly absorbed.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61350
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C65FDw.E8E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>According to this reasoning there are no rights, at least none that I can think
>of....
>
  You've got it. What you regard as a right, someone else will regard
as a privilege. Followups to some generic ethics and morality
newsgroup ....
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61351
From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter J Card)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <1rls95$9aj@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
>ruin the night sky.  

>Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
>include onobstructed air space.

You should have heard Prof. McNally , from my days as an astronomy
undergraduate, denouncing photon pollution. It was easy to imagine him
taking practical steps to modify the sodium lamps on the street
outside Mill Hill observatory with a 12-gauge shotgun :-)

However, seriously, it is possible to limit the effects of
streetlights, by adding a reflector, so that the light only
illuminates the ground, which is after all where you need it. As a
bonus, the power consumption required for a given illumination level
is reduced. Strangely enough, astronomers often seek to lobby elected
local authorities to use such lighting systems, with considerable
success in the desert areas around the major US observatories. At
least, thats what McNally told us, all those years ago.
( British local authorities couldn`t care less, as far as I can see )

I suppose that the "right" to dark skies is no more than an aspiration,
but it is a worthwhile one. Illuminated orbital billboards seem especially
yukky, and are presumably in the area of international law, if any, although
I do find the idea of a right to bear anti-satellite weapons intriguing.
-- 
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366 
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61352
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: Internet resources

exit




Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61353
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: Internet resources

I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

THANKS!

  KEITH MALINOWSKI
  STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
  P.O. Box 2472
  Stockton State College
  Pomona, New Jersey 08240


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61354
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

> getting at here.  This puppy is far enough away, that if a bright
> burst happens nearby, the huge annulus created by it will hopefully
> intersect the line or general circle given by BATSE, and we can get a
> moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3 degrees. That is the
> closest anyone has ever gotten with it.


You can do a whole hell of a lot better than 2 or 3 degrees with
the differential timing measurements from the interplanetary network.
Ignore the directional information from BATSE; just look at the time
of arrival.  With three detectors properly arranged, one can often
get positions down to ~arc minutes.

BTW, about Oort cloud sources: shouldn't this be testable in the
fairly near future?  Some of the GRBs have very short rise times (< 1
ms).  We could detect the curvature of the burst wavefront out to a
distance of on the order of b^2/(t c) where b is the detector spacing
and t the time resolution.  For t = 1 ms and b = 2 AU, this is on the
order of 16 light years.  I understand statistics will reduce this
number considerably, as would geometry if the burst is coming from the
wrong direction.

	Paul

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61355
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable
From: steveg@arc.ug.eds.com

In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
> In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:

>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>> [deleted]

>>
>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.
> 

This is the high-school science version; the original Rand study by
Stephen H Dole "Planets for Man" gives the harder numbers & graphs &
such (but predates Michael Hart's (& later) work on continuously 
habitable zones)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61356
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

> I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for
> Humans.  I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere
> evolve given a range of physical aspects of the planet.  The question
> is what physical aspects simply disallow earth like conditions.

This is a good question.  There are major blind spots in our understanding
of what makes the earth habitable.  For example, why does the earth's
atmosphere have the concentration of oxygen it does?  The naive
answer is "photosynthesis", but this is clearly incomplete.  Photosynthesis
by itself can't make the atmosphere oxygenated, as the oxygen produced
is consumed when the plants decay or are eaten.  What is needed
is photosynthesis plus some mechanism to sequester some fraction of
the resulting reduced material.

On earth, this mechanism is burial in seafloor sediments of organic
matter, mostly from oceanic sources.  However, this burial requires
continental sediments (in the deep ocean, the burial rate is so slow
that most material is consumed before it can be sequestered).

This suggests that a planet without large oceans, or a planet without
continents undergoing weathering, will have a hard time accumulating
an oxygen atmosphere.  In particular, an all-ocean planet may have a
hard time supporting an oxygen atmosphere.

There is also the problem of why the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere
has been relatively stable over geological time, for a period at least
2 orders of magnitude longer than the decay time of atmospheric O2 to
weathering in the absence of replenishment.  No convincing feedback
mechanism has been identified.  Perhaps the reason is the weak
anthropic principle: if during the last 500 MYr or so, the oxygen
level had dropped too low, we wouldn't be here to be wondering about
it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61357
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr27.174622.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>>    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
>> just wanted to add a point.
>> 
>.. 
>> then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
>> provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
>> considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have
>
>These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH??? 
>All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent 
>of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper.
>
   We don't disagree on this.  All I said was that a right is whatever
you or somebody acting for you can enforce.  The Bill of Rights didn't
come into effect until it was ratified by the states (and indirectly,
the people); from that point it defined legal rights.  "Common law"
rights are vague and situational; that's why the people insisted on a
Bill of Rights in the Constitution, spelling out exactly what they
demanded from the government.  Legitimate or illegitimate, power is
power.  That's why the federal government can force states to grant
their citizens rights they don't wish to: In a slugging match, the feds
win.  Period.

   And you're right, this doesn't belong in sci.space.  I've said my
peace.  No more frome me on rights (at least not here).

>Most gracious regards, 
>WHH 

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61358
From: u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen)
Subject: Commercials on the Moon

I have often thought about, if its possible to have a powerfull laser
on earth, to light at the Moon, and show lasergraphics at the surface
so clearly that you can see it with your eyes when there is a new
moon.

How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of
people.

Do you know if its possible?


--
Erik M. Hansen    |  Email u920496@daimi.aau.dk
Fuglsangsalle 69  |  Aarhus University
DK-8210  Erhus V  |  
Denmark, Europe   | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61359
From: rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

Ken Hayashida (khayash@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
: Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight
: to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.

: So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk
: about it; I shall.

: I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources
: to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate
: on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent 
: as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and 
: probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands
: the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence
: of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.

Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:

1.	Calculators
2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)


p.s.  To all the regular contributors to sci.space.news and
sci.space.shuttle, thanks for all your hard work keeping us informed
as to the doings down in NASA and other space-type agencies.  I don't
have much time to read USENET, but I ALWAYS read these two groups....

--
Robert E. Kaye	  Asst. Sys Admin      Surgical Information Systems
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center      Chicago,  IL   USA
Internet:  rek@siss81.rpslmc.edu   	     Voice:  (312) 942-5891 
					       FAX:  (312) 942-4228
   _____    _____    
  / ^ ^ \  / _ _ \   Support your local Community Theater Groups...! 
  | o o |  | o o |
  | \_/ |  | /-\ |   St. Marcellene's Church in Schaumburg Il. presents:
   \___/    \___/    "Meet Me in St. Louis" opening April 30th.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61360
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Astro FTP list - notes



    Hello, All!

  I apologize, I haven't published my astro FTP list since March.
  Now I haven't tested all the sites included into the list.  I
  would notified all the people, you have stored some older issues
  of my, there are now lots of changes.  Many sites have gone away:
  They either do not exist any more or all the astro stuff have
  removed.
 
  The job keep this list is very hard, so all the notes and informat-
  ion of changes, new sites, new contents etc. is welcome.

  I would thank all the net people who give me information for the
  newest version.



  					regards,

					Veikko Makela

					Computing Centre
					Univ. of Helsinki
					F I N L A N D


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61361
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Astro FTP list - April issue

#                     
#                        A S T R O - F T P   L I S T
#                             Updated 28.04.1993
#
# This  is  a  short  description  of  anonymous-ftp  file  servers  containing
# astronomy  and space research related material.  I have  included only  those
# servers  where  there are  special subdirectories  for  astro stuff  or  much
# material  included into  a general  directories.  This list is not a complete
# data set of possible places,  so I would be very happy of all kind of notices
# and information depending on this listing.
#
# The newest version of this file is available via anonymous-ftp as:
#
#                nic.funet.fi:/pub/astro/general/astroftp.txt
#                                       
# There are also many mirror (copy) archives  for  simtel-20.army.mil (PC)  and 
# sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mac) which are not included into this list. Only some
# of mirroring sites are listed.
#
#
#                                              Veikko Makela
#                                         Veikko.Makela@Helsinki.FI
#                                    *Computing Centre of Univ. Helsinki*
#                                      *Ursa Astronomical Association*   


# Server, IP                          # Contents                               
# Directories                                                                  
                                                                               
ames.arc.nasa.gov                     Spacecraf data and news,images,NASA data,
128.102.18.3                          Spacelink texts,VICAR software,FAQ
/pub/SPACE
     
arp.anu.edu.au                        Images
130.56.4.90
/pub/images/nasa

atari.archive.umich.edu               Atari                                    
141.211.164.8                                                                  
/atari/applications/astronomy                                                  
                                                                               
archive.afit.af.mil                   Satellite software,documents,elements
129.92.1.66
/pub/space
                                                                               
baboon.cv.nrao.edu                    AIPS document and patches,radioastronomy
192.33.115.103                        image processing,FITS test images
/pub/aips

c.scs.uiuc.edu                        ROSAT,Starchart(PC)                      
128.174.90.3                                                                   
/pub                                                                           
                                                                               
ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz                     PC
130.216.1.5
/msdos/astronomy                      (*) overseas connections refused

chara.gsu.edu                         Electronical Journal of ASA, Journal of
131.96.5.10                           ASA, SAC news
/

explorer.arc.nasa.gov                 Magellan, Viking and Voyager CDROMs
128.102.32.18
/cdrom

export.lcs.mit.edu                    XEphem distribution
18.24.0.12
/contrib/xephem

epona.physics.ucg.ie                  Some software, predictions, images,
140.203.1.3                           FITS info, miscellaneous
/pub/astro
/pub/space
/pub/fits

fits.cv.nrao.edu                      FITS documents, OS support, sample data,
192.33.115.8                          test files, sci.astro.fits archive
/FITS
                                                                               
ftp.cicb.fr                           Images
129.20.128.27
/pub/Images/ASTRO

ftp.cco.caltech.edu                   Astronomy magazine index 1991                                         
131.215.48.200                                                                 
/pub/misc                                                                      
                                                                               
ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de                   PC,Amiga,Mac,Unix,images,general
130.149.17.7
/pub/astro

ftp.funet.fi                          PC,Mac,CP/M,Atari,Amiga,databases,Unix,
128.214.6.100                         HP48,OS/2,texts,News,solar reports,images,
/pub/astro                            Satellite elements,FAQ
                                                                               
ftp.uni-kl.de                         iauc,Vista image reduction,asteroids
131.246.9.95
/pub/astro

garbo.uwasa.fi                        PC
128.214.87.1
/pc/astronomy                                                                  
                                                                               
gipsy.vmars.tuwien.ac.at              images
128.130.39.16
/pub/spacegifs

hanauma.stanford.edu                  Unix, satellite program, images
36.51.0.16                                                                      
/pub/astro                                                                     
/pub/astropix

hysky1.stmarys.ca                     ECU distribution
140.184.1.1
/pcstuff

idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov                IDL routines 
128.183.57.82
/
                                                                               
iraf.noao.edu                         IRAF Software                            
140.252.1.1                                                                    
/iraf                                                                          
                                                                               
julius.cs.qub.ac.uk                   Space Digest
143.117.5.6
/pub/SpaceDigestArchive

rata.vuw.ac.nz                        Astrophysical software
130.195.2.11
/pub/astrophys                                                                 
                                                                               
kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov                   Satellite elements,spacecraft info
128.149.1.165
/pub/space

ns3.hq.eso.org                        Test images, Standards
134.171.11.4
/pub/testimages
/pub/standards

nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov                  HST,IUE,Astro-1,NSSDCA info,Spacewarn,
128.183.36.23                         FITS standard                       
/                                                                         
                                                                               
plaza.aarnet.edu.au                   images,docs,Magellan
139.130.4.6
/graphics/graphics/astro
/magellan

pomona.claremont.edu                  Yale Bright Star Catalog
134.173.4.160
/YALE_BSC

pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov                  JPL news, status reports, images
128.149.6.2
/

ra.nrl.navy.mil                       Mac
128.60.0.21
/MacSciTech/astro

rascal.ics.utexas.edu                 Mac                                      
128.83.138.20
/mac                                                                           
                                                                               
rigel.acs.oakland.edu                 PC
141.210.10.117
/pub/msdos/astronomy

rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de           Atari                                    
129.69.1.12                                                                    
/soft/atari/applications/astronomy                                             
                                                                               
simtel20.army.mil                     PC,CP/M                                  
192.88.110.20
/msdos/educ                                                                    
/cpm                                                                           
                                                                               
sol.deakin.oz.au                      garbo.uwasa.fi c.                        
128.184.1.1                                                                    
/pub/PC/chyde/astronomy                                                        
                                                                               
solbourne.solbourne.com               some PC programs
141.138.2.2
/pub/rp/as-is/astro

stardent.arc.nasa.gov                 Martian map                              
128.102.21.44                                                                  
/pub                                                                           
                                                                               
stsci.edu                             HSTMap(Mac),HST info                                       
130.167.1.2                                                                    
/Software                                                                      
                                                                               
sumex.stanford.edu                    Mac                                      
36.44.0.6                                                                      
/info-mac/app                                                                  
                                                                               
sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de            PC,misc
129.206.100.126
/pub/msdos/astronomy

techreports.larc.nasa.gov             NASA Langley technical reports
128.155.3.58
/pub/techreports/larc

tetra.gsfc.nasa.gov                   FITSIO subroutines                             
128.183.8.77                                                                   
/pub
                                                                               
unbmvs1.csd.unb.ca                    Space geodesy,solar activity info
131.202.1.2
pub.canspace

vmd.cso.uiuc.edu                      Weather satellite images
128.174.5.98
/wx

world.std.com                         PC; source codes
192.74.137.5
/pub/astronomy

xi.uleth.ca                           Solar reports,auroral activity forecast
142.66.3.29                           maps,solar images,x-ray plot,coronal
/pub/solar                            emission plots

# Some abbreviations:
#
#   c = copy (mirror) of other archive




# -----
# My other e-communication projects:
# * E-mail contact addresses of interest groups in amateur astronomy
# * European astronomy and space-related bulletin boards
# * E-mail catalogue of Finnish amateur astronomers

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61362
From: bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>with that much weight in the payload.

Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

bd
-- 
Brian Day                                       bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov
New Technology, Inc.                            (205) 461-4584
Mission Software Development Division           Opinions are my own -

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61363
From: dempsey@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1993Apr28.132251.1@stsci.edu>, zellner@stsci.edu writes:
> 
> I have never heard of any serious consideration that HST might be brought 
> down for refurbishment.  You would have the horrendous cost of transporting,

Back in January and February there were several articles (Wash Post, Time...)
saying that NASA was "considering" the option just as it is now "considering"
a followup mission 6-12 months after the servicing mission.  However, the
down time was estimated to be a year+ (servicing, checkout, sceheduling
and training another shuttle, orbit verification...) and to be quite
expensive.  I think it may have been more a mental exercise than a
real plan.  Don't know.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dempsey                                 (410) 338-1334
STScI/PODPS                                                                   

"He which hath no stomach for this fight, Let him depart; his passport
shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse: We would not die
in this man's company that fears his fellowship to die with us." -Shakespeare
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61364
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1rls95$9aj@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
> |I say:
> |What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
> |would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
> |at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
> |would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
> 
> 
> Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to
> sci.space.aesthetics.
> 
> Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
> ruin the night sky.  
> 
> Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
> include onobstructed air space.
> 
> 

Hokay - I am hereby voting my backyard to be a sanctuary - one acre 
where I can object to anything I do not like for aesthetic reasons. 
<::-)  What a relief to know we both can be happy. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61365
From: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <pgf.735953163@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>
>>In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>
>>   [re: voyages of discovery...]
>>   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?
>
Much of Cook's later exploration was privately funded, by Joseph Banks
among others (eg in Resolution & the earlier Endeavour).  Colnett's voyage
to the Galapagos was substantially privately funded by the owners of
British whaling vessels.  Chancellor and Willoughby were privately funded
by London merchant companies in their voyages to Muscovy.  The list is
almost endless.  Those doing the funding were about eighty percent
motivated by potential profit, ten percent by potential glory and ten
percent by the desire to advance the sum of human knowledge.

--
Dan Newman
Aeronautical Engineering
University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2050
AUSTRALIA
From: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Path: key3.ae.su.oz.au!dan
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: 
Expires: 
References: 
Sender: 
Reply-To: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Aeronautical Engineering, Sydney University
Keywords: 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61366
From: daveka@microsoft.com (Dave Kappl)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

In article <1r8esd$lrh@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Are breathable liquids possible?
> 
> I remember seeing an old Nova or The Nature of Things where this idea was
> touched upon (it might have been some other TV show).  If nothing else, I know
> such liquids ARE possible because...
> 
> They showed a large glass full of this liquid, and put a white mouse (rat?) in
> it.  Since the liquid was not dense, the mouse would float, so it was held down
> by tongs clutching its tail.  The thing struggled quite a bit, but it was
> certainly held down long enough so that it was breathing the liquid.  It never
> did slow down in its frantic attempts to swim to the top.
> 
> Now, this may not have been the most humane of demonstrations, but it certainly
> shows breathable liquids can be made.
> -- 
> *Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
> *					* _____/_o_\_____
> *	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
> *	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

This was on "That's Incredible" several years ago.  The volume of liquid
the rat had to breath was considerably smaller than what a human would have
to breath, so maybe it is possible for a rat but not a human.

DaveTheRave

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61367
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <C663u5.IKC@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>... C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
>>or that... 
>
>Sure, you can get a heavylift launcher fairly cheap if you do it privately
>rather than as a gummint project.  But we're still talking about something
>that will cost nine digits per launch, unless you can guarantee a large
>market to justify volume production.

"Let's make a deal!"  If you're going to put up a billion, I'd want to budget
the whole sheebang for $450-600 million.  If I have that much money to throw
around in the first place, you betcha I'm going to sign a contract committing
to volume production...



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61368
From: u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Subject: Political banner in space

I propose that PepsiCo, Mcdonalds and other companies could put 
into orbit banners that have timely political messages, such as,

     "Stop the slaughter in Bosnia!"

, etc.

-rabjab

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61369
From: binglis@health.ufl.edu (binglis)
Subject: test (please ignore)





Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61370
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

First, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote:
: : I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
: : one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
: : Crystal City.  [...]

Second, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (me again) wrote:
: I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
: You can retrieve them from:
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif

: The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing
: charts.

: These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days,
: so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took
: me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
: but it's out of space.

But now I need to clarify the situation.  The "/incoming" directory on
ics.uci.edu does NOT allow you to do an "ls" command.  The files are
there (I just checked on 04/28/93 at 9:35 CDT), and you can "get" them
(don't forget the "binary" mode!), but you can't "ls" in the
"/incoming" directory.

A further update: Mark's design made the cover of Space News this week
as one of the design alternatives which was rejected.  But he's still
in there plugging.  I wish him luck -- using ET's as the basis of a
Space Station has been a good idea for a long time.

May the best design win.

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

     "Good ideas are not adopted automatically.  They must be driven into
       practice with courageous impatience." -- Admiral Hyman G. Rickover

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61371
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: The Dream Machines: book on vaporware spacecraft

Ron Miller is a space artist with a long and distinguished career.  
I've admired both his paintings (remember the USPS Solar System
Exploration Stamps last year?) and his writings on the history of
spaceflight.  For several years he's been working on a *big* project
which is almost ready to hit the streets.  A brochure from his
publisher has landed in my mailbox, and I thought it was cool enough
to type in part of it (it's rather long).  Especially given the Net's
strong interest in vaporware spacecraft...

                 ==================================

                         The Dream Machines:
An Illustrated History of the Spaceship in Art, Science, and Literature

                            By Ron Miller
                  with Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke

Krieger Publishing Company
Melbourne, Florida, USA
Orig. Ed. 1993
Pre-publication $84.50
ISBN 0-89464-039-9


This text is a history of the spaceship as both a cultural and a
technological phenomenon.  The idea of a vehicle for traversing the
space betwen worlds did not spring full-blown into existence in the
tlatter half of theis century.  The need preceded the ability ot make
such a device by several hundred years.  As soon as it was realized
that there were other worlds than this one, human beings wanted to
reach them.   

Tracing the history of the many imaginative, and often prescient,
attempts to solve this problem also reflects the history of
technology, science, astronomy, and engineering.  Once space travel
became feasible, there were many more spacecraft concepts developed
than ever got off the drawing board-- or off the ground, for that
matter.  These also are described in theis book, for the same reason
as the pre-space-age and pre-flight ideas are:  they are all accurate
reflections of their particular era's dreams, abilities, and
knowledge.  Virtually every spaceship concept invented since 1500, as
well as selected events important in developing the idea of
extraterrestrial travel, is listed chronologically.  The chronological
entries allow comparisons between actual astronautical events and
speculative ventures.  They also allow comparisons between
simultaneous events taking place in different countries.  They reveal
connections, influences, and evolutions hitherto unsuspected.  Every
entry is accompanied by at least one illustration.  Nearly every
spacecraft concept is illustrated with a schematic drawing.  This
allows accurate comparisons to be made between designss, to visualize
differences, similarities, and influences.

This text will be of interest to students of astronautical history,
and also to model builders who would be interested in the schematic
diagrams.   Science fiction fans as well as aviation history buffs and
historians of science will also find this book to be fascinating.  The
unique collection of illustrations makes it a visually attractive and
very interesting history of the spaceship.

SPECIAL FEATURES

Includes scale drawings of several hundred spacecraft, both real and
fictional

Contains scores of illustrations: artwork, drawings, and photos
contemporary with the subject.  This includes extremely rare
illustrations from scarce books and novels, exclusive photos and
drawings fromSoviet spacecraft; rare stills from both famous and
obscure science fiction films, and unpublished photographs from NASA
archives

An index, bibliography, and appendices are included.

CONTENTS

Part I  The Archaeology of the Spaceship (360 B.C. to 1783 A.D.)
Part II The invention of the Spaceship (1784-1899)
Part III The Experimenters (1900-1938)
Part IV The World War (1939-1945)
Part V  The Golden Age of the Spaceship (1946-1960)
Part VI The Dawn of the Space Age (1961 to the present)

ABOUT RON MILLER

[The brochure has a page of stuff here; I'll try to hit the high
spots.]

Former art director for Albert Einstein Planetarium  at Smithsonian's
National Air and Space Museum

Member of International Association for Astronomical Arts, member of
International Astronautical Association, Fellow of the British
Interplanetary Society,  consulting editor for *Air & Space
Smithsonian* magazine

Author, co-author, editor, or sole illustrator on many books since
1979, including *Space Art*, *Cycles of Fire*, *The Grand Tour*, and
many others, as well as many articles and papers

Book jackets and interior art for over a dozen publishers 

Contributor to IBM traveling exhibition and book *Blueprint for Space*

Production illustrator for movies *Dune* and *Total Recall*

Designer of ten-stamp set of commemorative space postage stamps for
U.S. Postal Service in 1991 (Solar System Exploration)

ORDERING INFORMATION

Pre-publication price $84.50 before 1 May 1993
Afterwards, price will be $112.50

Krieger Publishing Company
PO Box 9542
Melbourne, FL 32902-9542
USA
Direct order line (407)727-7270
Fax (407)951-3671

Add $5.00 for shipping by UPS within USA for first book, $1.50 for each
additional book.  

For foreign orders, add $6.00 for first book, $2.00 for each
additional.  Additional charges for airmail shipments.

     O~~*         /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                        (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |   Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /   Bitnet:                          HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -     Internet:                      HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~       SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet:                  43011::HIGGINS

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61372
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: DC-X news

Static test firings are now scheduled for this Saturday.....after many
schedule changes.....

It may be difficult to get test status during the next two weeks....the
number of contacts are drying up as they all go to New Mexico......GO DELTA
CLIPPER!!

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61373
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

>>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

> In one of his lesser known books (I can't
> remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
> travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon...

  That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to
get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for
TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200
collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern
times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or
so to get a copy.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61374
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <C66E1G.KM9@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>> ...the temperature of the (night) sky as seen from space?
>     You'll find that in Allen, C.W., "Astrophysical Quantities", Athlone
>Press, Dover, NH, 3rd edition, pp. 268-269 (1973)...

#@$#%$!!  I *have* a copy of Allen, and it never occurred to me to look
in there...  I must be getting old...  I'll look it up when I get home.
Thanks.

>... the temperature is 3 degrees K.

I'd remembered a rather higher number, but that may have been for the
lunar nearside, where the Earth is a significant heat source.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61375
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU> richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:
>   Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
>in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
>what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
>radiation field?"

Basically the right question, although I was interested in cases closer
to home where the Sun is behind either a natural object or effective
shielding.

>   If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
>molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
>from being blackbodies...
>   Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
>from place to place...

Good point (and thanks for the references).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61376
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU>, richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU
(Stupendous Man) writes: 

>  (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>> (night) sky as seen from space?
>>
> 
>    Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
> in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
> what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
> radiation field?"
> 
>    If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
> molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
> from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
> and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
> can range from 40K to 150K.  

Yes, but that's because interstellar grains are very poor radiators, not
remotely black bodies.  As a consequence they are a lot warmer than the
"ambient".
 
>    Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
> from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association,
> I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so 
> varied.
> 

When I was in graduate school, a long time ago, we used 10,000 deg K with
a DILUTION FACTOR of 10+4 for representative values of the radiant energy
background in the galaxy due to starlight.  

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61377
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
>the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites.
>THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
>pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it,
>and 1 alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that.  The *total mass* of the
Pluto Fast Flyby spacecraft is only 250ish pounds, and most of that is
support equipment like power and communications.  The mass available for
instruments is maybe 10% of that.  I don't think a BATSE will fit...

Actually, would you need the shielding?  My understanding is that it's
mostly there to give the detectors some directionality.  No point in
doing that if you've only got one.  I'm sure the burst detectors that
have flown on other deep-space missions haven't weighed that much.
(Mind you, they're probably still too heavy -- the PFF people would put
more Pluto-specific instruments on first, if they had any mass to spare.)
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61378
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>|much energy in one second? 
>>                                                -jeremy

>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.

It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
in the interstellar medium.)

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61379
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr28.150719.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes...
> 
>  That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to
>get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for
>TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200
>collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern
>times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or
>so to get a copy.

I too am a Jules Verne collector, and can tell you that though tough 
to find, it *is* out there.  I keep my eyes open all the time for his
books at various Bay Area used book stores, and every once in a while
get *very* lucky.  You just need diligence.  I don't know if the book
store situation near JSC is as good as the Bay Area, but good luck.
I have also had excellent luck at the Antiquarian Book Fair which comes
to SF every other year, though the prices are more in the $100-$200 range
than the $50 you want to spend.  My guess is that *if* you find it,
you won't need to spend even that much, since most people don't care 
about it.  I think I paid about $15 for my dust-jacket-less but otherwise
good condition copy, which I found one day at a small bookshop that happened
to have just bought a lot of random books at an estate sale.  

Of course, if you re willing to buy blind, you can put a $2 advertisement
in the Antiquarian Bookseller's newsletter (the exact title of which escapes
me at the moment.)  _Five Weeks in a Balloon_ is not the rarest of Jules
Verne books.  Someone has it for sale somewhere, and the AB is the way to 
find it.  In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't get multiple offers
of sale.  Of course, that takes the fun out of hunting for it yourself...

Good luck.

-Scott
--------------------                          New .sig under construction
Scott I. Chase                                     Please be patient
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                                   Thank you 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61380
From: jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?


 I understand the when one is in orbit, the inward force of gravity at
one's center of mass is exactly balanced by the outward centrifugal
force from the orbiting motion, resulting in weightlessness.

 I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
there a constant sensation of falling? And what is the motion sickness
that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

 Please reply only if you are either a former or current astronaut, or 
someone who has had this discussion first-hand with an astronaut. 
Thanks!

-- 
Jerry Liebelson
jlieb@is.morgan.com
73477.2740@compuserve.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61381
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>,
bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes: 
> rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
> 
>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.
> 
> Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???
> 

I hate to belabor the obvious once again, but if there had been an Orbiter
emergency in the early stages of the original HST deployment mission, they
would have HAD to land with HST in the bay. 

Indeed they were worried about that.  One concern was the possibility that
they would lose a motor or something on the way up, and make orbit but one
that was too low to give HST a useful lifetime against atmospheric drag.  
I believe the decision was to deploy HST even if the projected lifetime was
as short as six months.  In fact we got an excellent orbit, on the upper
envelope of what the Shuttle can do.

I have never heard of any serious consideration that HST might be brought 
down for refurbishment.  You would have the horrendous cost of transporting,
cleaning, re-testing, and re-certifying all the hardware on the ground, in
addition to the lost observing time and the cost of a second deployment 
mission with the risks that we might not get such a good orbit the second 
time.  And, you would probably STILL need a (third) servicing mission in a 
few years as gyros and other components wear out.  Better to have two 
servicing missions in space (which could well happen) than to bring HST down 
and take it up again.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61382
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:

>rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.

>Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

I can't speak to sheer mass, but part of the problem is that HST
wasn't built to ever be brought back down.  It's not built for those
kinds of 'jolt' forces and there is no support cradle for it (which is
additional weight that would be required.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61383
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <C65FIE.4ty@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
writes in response to Michael Adams post:
>>I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
>>discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
>>such..- Adams
>
>Why bother with a new newsgroup?  If you want to discuss the subject,
>*start discussing it*.  If there is enough traffic to annoy the rest of
>us, we will let you know... and *then* it will be time for a new newsgroup.

Well, here goes.

The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
or even curious about spaceflight.  I think that this forum can
make a major change in that lack of insight and education.

All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
term human habitation in space.

I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to 
succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight.  Such a detailed
literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
and clearly important to existing space programs.

In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
and any other source!

I'm eager to hear your comments and see posts on this thread.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61384
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>...
>4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
>we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

We can only say that they are beyond about 25 AU, due to the low
accuracy of position determination by single detectors.

>what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.
>Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.   
>Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.
>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
>just a little speculative thinking folks.

It may be a NEW Physics problem (i.e. a problem involving new
physics).  However, the data is not good enough to rule out the >100
models which use old physics.  New physics is a big step, and is only
tolerated when there is no alternative.  For example , the Dark Matter
Problem (there's more to the universe than meets the eye) is a question
of comparable mystery to GRBs, but we have much better data regarding
it.  Theoreticians postulate new particles all the time to explain it,
but no one will actually believe that these particles are real until an
experimentalist (or several) detects them in the lab.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61385
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: HyperKnowledge

In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes...
> 
> 
>ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP
> 
>Motivation
> 
>We are a heterogeneous group of scientists and students who feel that our  
>work is continuously hindered by computer environments dominated by  
>incompatible scientific tools and monstrous software packages (too often  
>claiming to do everything).  

>What we need is an object-oriented scientific environment where the tools  
>we choose to use are integrated without being parts of a closed system,  
>highly interactive, and extendable (both by the addition of our own  
>specialized objects and by combining the available tools - graphically).   
>The use of such an environment should be a natural extension of our work,  
>requiring a very short learning phase and practically no  
>user-documentation.  


I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to
answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these
people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today.

It is called labview by National Instruments.  IT is a wonderful object
oriented graphical programming language.  IT has been implemented on
both Mac's PC's and VME unix boxes.  IT is fare superior to any programming
approach that I have ever seen and allowed us to decrease the software
development time for our shuttle payloads by 90 percent.  This program is
not dependendant on specific hardware and already has exensive analysis 
capability.

Why re-invent the wheel on a platform that may not exist? It is a great
idea but look out there at what is available today.  The Hydrogen leak on
the Shuttle was found using this software. All SSME control and simulation
studies, along with the real testing at MSFC is handled with LabVIEW.  There
are tons of applications, with the ability to create "virtual" instruments
that can accomplish any specific custom task the maker desires.  With the
addition of IEEE-488 support, the computer becomes a virtual control station,
allowing the graphic representation of remote instrumentation. With serial
I/O support that instrument can be anywhere.  The ground control software
for the main control of SEDSAT 1 will utilize this approach.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61386
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1rlrpv$5ta@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
> 

>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
>just a little speculative thinking folks.
> 
>pat


Well pat for once I agree with you and I like your first idea that you had.
IT probably is the gamma ray signature of the warp transitions of interstellar
spacecraft! :)

Well it makes as much sense as some things. I was at the first Gamma Ray
Burst conference here at UAH and had great fun watching the discomfiture
of many of the Gamma Ray scientists. Much scruitiny was given to the
data reductions. I remember one person in particular who passionately declared
that the data was completely wrong as there were no explanation for the
phenomena of the smooth sky distribution. (heck it even shoots down the
warp transition theory :(. The next conference is soon and I will endeavour
to keep in touch with this fun subject.

Dennis

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61387
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Political banner in space

u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO) writes:

>I propose that PepsiCo, Mcdonalds and other companies could put 
>into orbit banners that have timely political messages, such as,

>     "Stop the slaughter in Bosnia!"

Or how about:
    "End light pollution now!!"

Your banner would have no effect on its subject, but my banner would.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61388
From: jecurt01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (John E. Curtis)
Subject: space surveillance

  One of the main reasons nations like the US and RUSSIA observe satellite
  that have been launched is FORBs system whick loft nuclear bombs into
  orbit which are planned to be detonated in LEO causing EMP pulses
  interfering with the target command and control system.

					     

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61389
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:

>Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
>of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
>determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
>of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
>give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
>any help.

But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.
Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors
and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have
any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to
determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small 
component to the positional error.  

Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).
If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to 
have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline.

The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and
watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination
when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from.

-Kevin

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61390
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In <1993Apr29.114622.1@arc.ug.eds.com> steveg@arc.ug.eds.com writes:

>In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

>>>
>>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
>> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
>> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.
>> 

>This is the high-school science version; the original Rand study by
>Stephen H Dole "Planets for Man" gives the harder numbers & graphs &
>such (but predates Michael Hart's (& later) work on continuously 
>habitable zones)

Is this still in print or available (other than on loan)?  I remember
reading this many years ago and it's still the best thing I remember
in this vein.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61391
From: gbt@cray.com (Greg Titus)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?

I'm not sure if this is a big issue, but it seems to me like it
might be -- up till now, all >1g forces applied to the mirror and
its mounting (and nearly all =1g forces) have been applied along the
telescope's optical axis, and against the mirror's base.  Reentry
would apply forces along roughly the same axis, but tending to pull
the mirror away from the mount, and the landing would apply on-edge
forces to both the mirror and mount.  It could be that one or both
of these would not survive.

greg
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)                   Compiler Group
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61392
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.

Obviously not.  Count rates are too low and signal rise times too long
for this to be possible.  The CGRO, is, what, 10 meters long?  You'd
need to time to an accuracy of nanoseconds to do this.

What BATSE actually does is measure the relative strength in each of
the detectors (also as a function of photon energy).  Each of the
detectors does not have isotropic response.  To do this right one must
model the scattering of photons in the material around each detector,
and even scattering of photons off the Earth's atmosphere back onto
the spacecraft.  I believe they have now reduced the error to about 2
degrees.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61393
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?

In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes...
> I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
>there a constant sensation of falling? 

Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first,
but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that
of sky diving.

>And what is the motion sickness
>that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

It is the body's reaction to a strange environment.  It appears to be induced
partly to physical discomfort and part to mental distress.  Some people are 
more prone to it than others, like some people are more prone to get sick 
on a roller coaster ride than others.  The mental part is usually induced by 
a lack of clear indication of which way is up or down, ie: the Shuttle is 
normally oriented with its cargo bay pointed towards Earth, so the Earth 
(or ground) is "above" the head of the astronauts.  About 50% of the astronauts 
experience some form of motion sickness, and NASA has done numerous tests in 
space to try to see how to keep the number of occurances down.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61394
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
>>the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites.
>>THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
>>pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it,
>>and 1 alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

>Actually, the situation is even worse than that.  The *total mass* of the
>Pluto Fast Flyby spacecraft is only 250ish pounds, and most of that is
>support equipment like power and communications.  The mass available for
>instruments is maybe 10% of that.  I don't think a BATSE will fit...

From the Pluto Fast Flyby Instrument definition research anouncemnet,
the instrument payload constraints are:
    Mass allocation -  7 kilograms (15.4 lbs)
    Power allocation - 6 watts
    Required instruments:
	Visible imaging system (1024x1024 CCD, 750 mm fl, f/10 optics)
	IR mapping spectrometer (256x256 HgCdTe array, 0.3% energy resolution)
	UV spectrometer (55-200 nm, 0.5 nm resolution)
	Radio science (ultrastable oscilator incorporated in telecom system)
		ultrastable means 10^-14.

This doesn't leave much room for payloads which are totally unrelated
to the  mission of the spacecraft.  In addition, the power will come
from a radioisotope thermal generator, and the whole space craft will
be about 2 feet in diameter, with no booms, which means there will be
strong gamma-lines from Pu-239 and associated schmutz in the
background, which tends to reduce sensitivity somewhat.

It would still be nice, and our group here at Goddard is looking
in to it.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61395
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:

>Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
>require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
>cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
>now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
>that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).

According to my *Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics*:
"parsec (abbreviation for parallax second) 	The distance at which
one astronomical unit subtends an angle of 1 second of arc.  1 pc =
206,265 AU = 3.086 X 10^13 km = 3.26 lt-yr."

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferfish Observatory          <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61396
From: rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


In article <1993Apr28.171915.5013@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:
|> 
|> >rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
|> 
|> >>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
|> >>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
|> >>with that much weight in the payload.
|> 
|> >Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???
|> 
|> I can't speak to sheer mass, but part of the problem is that HST
|> wasn't built to ever be brought back down.  It's not built for those
|> kinds of 'jolt' forces and there is no support cradle for it (which is
|> additional weight that would be required.

Just to throw it out there:  The mass of the telescope is 11,600 kg 
(25,500 lb).  I do not know what Space lab weighs, but I believe it is
less.  Can anyone verify??

Also, remember that weight was not the only concern, as many others have 
noted, just one possible concern.  I was responding to a statement that
if you can boost it, why can't you land it.  Those are too different
problems.

ROB
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |
| Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     |
===========================================================================

Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course 
	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines. 
	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful
	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61397
From: bell@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301)513-1663)
Subject: Displaying compressed Voyager images on a Mac


	Sorry, I've lost track of who asked the question originally 
	(our news server at GSFC keeps things around for tremendously
	short periods of time), but wanted to be certain before I
	replied. Someone asked about displaying the compressed images
	from the Voyager imaging CD-ROMs on a Mac. As Peter Ford (MIT)
	pointed out, a decompression program is available via FTP.
	(Sorry, I don't remember the name of the node offhand, 
	although it's .mit.edu.) In any case, though, one of the MAC
	display programs (CD ROM Browser by Dana Swift) does display
	the compressed images directly. The program is shareware and
	is distributed by NSSDC for nominal reproduction costs ($9 +
	shipping, if memory serves). This does *not* cover the
	shareware price which should go to Dana for his diligent work
	and upgrades, however.

	To request current pricing information, information about
	available display software, catalogs, or data from NSSDC,
	contact our user support office at:

		National Space Science Data Center
		Coordinated Request and User Support Office (CRUSO)
		Mail Code 633
		NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
		Greenbelt, MD   20771
		Phone: (301) 286-6695
		Fax:   (301) 286-4952

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II	|  E-mail:				       |
|  Mail Code 633.9		|	(SPAN) NCF::Bell		       |
|  National Space Science	|	or   NSSDC::Bell		       |
|    Data Center		|	or  NSSDCA::Bell		       |
|  NASA				|	or  NSSDCB::Bell		       |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center	|   (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771	|					       |
|  (301) 513-1663		|					       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61398
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Exploration Lecture

     The AIAA San Gabriel Valley Section is sponsoring the following lecture
on Mars exploration at the Jet Propulsion Lab.  Admission is free and open to
the public.

                           The Next Frontier:
                    The Challenge of Mars Exploration

                      DATE:     May 6, 1993
                      TIME:     6:00PM - 8:30 PM
                      LOCATION: Von Karman Auditorium
                                Jet Propulsion Lab
                                4800 Oak Grove Drive
                                Pasadena, California

     The following five speakers will be featured:

              A Science Fiction Perspective
              Tom McDonaugh
              Science Fiction Writer

               Mars Observer
               Dr. Arden Albee
               Project Scientist, Mars Observer - JPL

               Mars '94
               Dr. Arthur L. Lane
               Instrument Manager, Mars '94 - JPL

               Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)
               Richard Cook
               Mission Designer - JPL

               Manned Mission to Mars
               Dr. Robert Zubrin
               Senior Engineer, Martin Marietta Astronautics

     For more information, contact AIAA at 800-683-2422 or Mark Leon at
310-332-1098.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61399
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up

That has sort of happened for real. Back in the 1920's travellers
in the Sudan would find strange cigar shaped designs on native huts.
When asked the locals would say it was a picture of the great omen
that appeared in the sky. This was LZ 53 a zepplin flying from Bulgaria
to German East Africa with supplies in 1917 (and back since it was fooled
by the British secret service.)
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61400
From: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
> >1.	Calculators
> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
> 
> I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
> many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
> I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
> a good thing.
> 
> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
> and of itself.

I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is
inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it
cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether
something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become
increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!). 
They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want
something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.

I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
existence of the space program relies upon that money.

just my $.02

BTW: don't forget Velcro...

bcnu - John Gladu
Systems Support Center -- Baylor College of Medicine
INTERNET: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu  | VOICE: (713)798-7370
 US MAIL:  One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas  77030
.opinions expressed are just that.obviously.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61401
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr27121443@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   _The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
   no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
   to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
   "conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
   by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
   least it was a good try...

So you have a plausible model for GRB's at astronomical distances?
Recent observations have just about ruled out the merging neutron star
hypothesis, which had a lot of problems, anyhow.  We have to look for
implausible models and what is fundamentally allowed independent of
models.

A paper on the possibility of GRB's in the Oort cloud just came
through the astrophysics abstract service.  To get a copy of this
paper, send a message to astro-ph@babbage.sissa.it with the subject
line 
  get 9304001


Here is the abstract of that paper.

   The currently favored explanation for the origin of \GRBs puts them
   at cosmological distances;
   but as long as there is no distance
   indicator to these events all possible sources which are
   isotropically distributed should remain under consideration. This is
   why the Oort cloud of comets is kept on the list,
   although there is no known mechanism for generating \GRBs
   from cometary nuclei. Unlikely as it may seem, the possibility that \GRBs
   originate in the solar cometary cloud
   cannot be excluded until it is disproved.

   We use the available data on the distribution of \GRBs (the BATSE
   catalogue up to March, 1992), and
   the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits  by Marsden and Williams (1992) to
   investigate whether there is any observational indication for correlations
   between the angular distributions of \GRBs and comets' aphelia,
   assuming that the distribution of aphelia direction reflect,
   at least to some extent, true variations
   in the column density of the Oort cloud. We also apply the $\vov$
   test to both distributions.

   We have  performed a variety of statistical tests (a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
   test for the distributions in galactic latitude, a
   $\chi^2$ test for the spherical multiple moments, and a 2-D
   cross-correlation analysis), including testing sub-samples for
   isolating the effect of possible observational biases.
   These tests imply that it is unlikely that the two distributions agree, but
   the statistical significance  is not sufficient for ruling out any
   connection with complete confidence. We performed Monte-Carlo simulations
   which show that only when the number of bursts exceeds $\sim 800$
   it is possible to rule out a correlation between the angular distributions.
   Currently,
    it is only the combination of these tests  with the large disagreement
   found for the $\vov$ parameter which makes the Oort
   cloud of comets unlikely to be related to \GRBs.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61402
From: Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <26APR199310105388@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>....
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
>> 
>>Seen that movie already...
>
>Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not
>_The Gods Must Be Crazy._...

My comment was off the top of my head; I wasn't aware that it had
already been thought of.  Guess it's true that there's nothing new under
the sun (or in this case, the flying billboards.)


--

Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61403
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93117.91666666  .00044808  00000-0  13489-3 0    63
2 22640  28.4614 259.3429 0005169 259.6342  61.8074 15.90673799   201
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61404
From: moses@pan.arc.nasa.gov (julie moses)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

>> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>> (night) sky as seen from space?
>>
>> Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
>> Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
>> after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
>> disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
>
>
I'm not sure if this will help you, but the (local) interstellar
radiation field has been measured and modeled by various groups.  If I
remember things correctly, the models involved contributions from three
different BB sources, so there's no obvious "temperature" of background
radiation in our local area.  However, the following references give the
interstellar radiation density as a function of wavelength, and you can
integrate and average in an appropriate manner to get an "effective"
temperature if you like:

Witt and Johnson (1973) Astrophys. J. 181, 363 - 368
Henry et al. (1980) Astrophys. J. 239, 859 - 866
Mathis et al. (1983) Astron. Astrophys. 128, 212 - 229

As you can see, the references are out of date, but they might get you
started.

Hope this helps,

					Julie

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61405
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <ETHANB.93Apr28135146@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr27121443@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

      _The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
      no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
      to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
      "conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
      by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
      least it was a good try...

   So you have a plausible model for GRB's at astronomical distances?

I don't have any plausible models for GRBs at any distances ;-)

   Recent observations have just about ruled out the merging neutron star
   hypothesis, which had a lot of problems, anyhow.  We have to look for
   implausible models and what is fundamentally allowed independent of
   models.

Hmm, the "superbowl" burst has been claimed in press releases
to cast doubt on the merging NS hypothesis, from what I've read
(and I haven't seen the papers, only the press) I'd say it is
consistent with some of the merging NS models

   A paper on the possibility of GRB's in the Oort cloud just came
   through the astrophysics abstract service.  To get a copy of this

   Here is the abstract of that paper.

 ...
      indicator to these events all possible sources which are
      isotropically distributed should remain under consideration. This is
      why the Oort cloud of comets is kept on the list,
      although there is no known mechanism for generating \GRBs
      from cometary nuclei. Unlikely as it may seem, the possibility that \GRBs
      originate in the solar cometary cloud
      cannot be excluded until it is disproved.

This does not propose a _mechanism_ for GRBs in the Oort (and, no,
anti-matter annihilation does not fit the spectra at least as far
as I understand annihilation spectra...). Big difference.
That's ignoring the question of how you fit a distribution
to the Oort distribution when the Oort distribution is not well
known - in particular comet aphelia (which are not well known)
are not a good measure of the Oort cloud distribution...


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61406
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

I personally prefer natural skies, far from city lights and sans aircraft.  
However, there is also something to be said for being able to look up into the
sky and see a satellite.  Many people get a real kick out of it, especially if
they haven't seen one before.   
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61407
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/28/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                     MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                           April 28, 1993
                            12:40 PM PDT

Flight Sequence C9 is active as of 00:11 AM, Tuesday, April 27.  With
activities beginning at shortly before 5:00 AM yesterday, C9 commanded
the spacecraft to execute a series of slews and rolls to provide the MAG
(Magnetometer) Team data points in varying spacecraft attitudes and
orientations for the purpose of better characterizing the
spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument.

The spacecraft was commanded back to Sun Star Init state at 9:07 AM to
re-establish Inertial Reference.  Transition back to Array Normal Spin
began at 11:17 AM, after which the sequence powered on the on-board
transmitter at 11:18 AM.  Telemetry reacquisition occurred at
approximately 11:30 AM at the 4 KBS Science and Engineering downlink
data rate on the High Gain Antenna.  Subsystem engineers report that all
systems appear to be nominal.  The command to terminate using the Low
Gain Antenna for uplink was sent at 12:31 PM.  Uplink and Downlink are
currently via the HGA.

MAG Calibration data has been recorded on Digital Tape Recorders 2 and 3.
Playback of DTR 2 is scheduled to take place tomorrow morning between
8:11 AM and 12:42 PM.  Playback of DTR 3 is scheduled to take place
tomorrow evening beginning at 11:57 PM and ending at 4:28 AM on Friday.
DTR playback will be performed via the High Gain Antenna at 42,667 bits
per second.  Upon verification of successful DTR playbacks, downlink will
be maintained at the 4K S & E rate.

The MAG Cal activity timeline ends at shortly before 5:00 AM on Friday
morning.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61408
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

>  From: harrisd@ll.mit.edu ( David Harris)
>  Message-Id: <9304271045.AA00468@LL.MIT.EDU>
>  To: Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM
>  Subject: RE: Level 5 Shuttle Software Work
>
>  Bret,
>
>  If you are familiar with the software work that received the Level 5
>  rating, could you post a description of it and/or some references?  I
>  think many people would be interested to know just what the IBM team
>  on that effort is doing differently from most other organizations/projects
>  that earned them that rating.

I am familiar with the project.  It is the Onboard Shuttle Flight
Software Project.  This software controls the Space Shuttle During
all dynamic phases as well as on-orbit.
It has ultra-high reliability and extremely
low error rates.  There have been several papers published on the
subject and I'll collect some references.  There may be an
article in the IBM Systems Journal Late '93, early '94.

There is no magic formula.  We did it with dedicated and disciplined
folks who worked to put together a process that finds and removes errors
and is corrected based on errors that "escape".  We present a
one day overview of our process periodically to interested folks.
The next one is May 19th in Washington, D.C.  I can fax specifics
to those who are interested.

Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM

(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61409
From: mock@abell.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?


In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu>, kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
> In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:
> 
> But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
> three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
> an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.

This is not quite right.  The differential arrival time techinique
requires interplanetary baselines to get good positions.  The
differential arrival at the eight detectors differ by 10's of nanoseconds.
This is smaller than BATSE's microsecond timing capabilities.
BATSE, Ulysses, and Mars Obsverver are used for this technique.

Each BATSE detector does not have a full sky field of view.
The sensitivity of each detector decreases with increasing 
angle of incidence.  The burst position on the sky is determined by
comparing the count rates in different detectors.

Pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61410
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes...
>Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
>assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
>always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
>If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
>a "NO-OP" command.
> 
I know its semantics, but the "no-op" _doesn't_ do anything.  The
Command Loss Timer is simply looking for a command, any command.  A
"no-op" is simply a spacecraft command that drops bits into the big
bit bucket in the sky.  "No-op" also get used as timekeepers to provide
millisecond delays between command sequences (used on the thruster preps
on GRO, er, Compton) and to verify command links at the beginning of
TDRS events.  All in all, a rather useful command.  And, an intelligent
FDC test on Galileo (the Command Loss Timer).

David W. @ GSFC
(still looking for GRO data, even though I'm the wrong David) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61411
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes...
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?
> 
>Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
>horrendous expense?
> 

I don't think a reboost exercise is analogous to a shuttle landing/launch
in terms of stresses/misalignments/etc.  I would think of the reboost as
a gentile push, where a landing, then launch as two JOLTS which would
put more mechanical stress on the instruments.  Additionally, there might
be a concern about landing loads to the shuttle in the event of a laden
landing.  Finally, probably some thought went into possible contamination 
problems if the instruments came back to earth.

Of course, the cost of two shuttle launches _is_ a good reason to avoid
something that might be done in one shuttle launch.  Here's hoping
Cepi's gang gets the job done right the first time.

David W. @ GSFC
(I used to work for Frank Cepollina)  

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61412
From: garym@alsys.com (Gary Morris @ignite)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:
>rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.

>Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

HST is about 25,500 lbs (11,600 kg).  That doesn't include the cradle that
would have been in the cargo bay when it was deployed.  Spacelab-J on STS-47
was 21,861 lbs (according to the press-kit). 

As someone else pointed out if they had been unable to deploy it for some
reason that would have had to land with it still in the cargo bay and this
was a planned for contingency.  This is not a problem for the shuttle,
though it would eliminate KSC as a landing site, they still have to go to
Edwards when landing with something like Spacelab in the cargo bay. 

--GaryM
-- 
Gary Morris                      Internet: garym@alsys.com
TeleUSE Development              UUCP:     uunet!alsys.com!garym
Alsys Group (TeleSoft)           Phone:    +1 619-457-2700 x128
San Diego, CA, USA               Fax:      +1 619-452-1334

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61413
From: richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man)
Subject: Interstellar T _is_ 3-4K; notes on Pluto/Charon talk and Pluto Mission

   (sci.space readers can skip the first paragraph)

  Yesterday, in response to Henry Spencer's question about the 
temperature of a blackbody in interstellar space, I said "Dust grains
acts as blackbodies, and they're at 40-150 K."  Well, I was dead
wrong.  Our local interstellar dust expert, Bruce Draine, has
informed me that dust grains _aren't_ good radiators in the far IR,
which is why they are so warm; actually, the ambient radiation field
from distant stars can bring a true blackbody to only 3 or 4 Kelvin.
Sorry, Henry, and anyone else I misled.  Obviously, time for me to
take another ISM class :-(

  In other news, Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute gave
a talk on the Pluto-Charon binary system yesterday.  He gave a brief
overview of the currently-accepted system parameters (volume ratio of
about 8:1, mass ratio about 15:1 or so, plus lots more...) and then
gave his thoughts on the formation of Pluto-Charon.  His idea is 
that there were lots and lots of small planetesimals in the outer
solar system, with masses distributed as a power law of some kind;
over time, the planetesimals accreted into larger bodies.  Most got
scattered out of the solar system by close encounters with Jupiter
and Saturn, but many accreted into the gas giants, especially
Uranus and Neptune.  A large planetesimal was captured by Neptune -
we call it Triton [captured how?  Perhaps by a collision with a smaller,
already-existing Neptunian moon, perhaps by a very close passage through
Neptune's atmosphere - mondo aerobraking!].

  He notes that the two recently discovered "Kuiper Belt" objects,
1992 QB1 and 1993 FW, plus Chiron and Pholus, are all about the same 
mass, and he identifies this group as one-accretion-down from the
larger bodies of Triton and Pluto/Charon.  Pluto/Charon, he thinks,
formed when an impacting body hit proto-Pluto, knocking some material
into a ring around Pluto which later accreted in Charon; similar to
ideas about the formation of Earth's moon.  There is good evidence
from spectra that the surfaces of Pluto and Charon are very different
(Pluto has methane frost, Charon doesn't), which can be used as evidence
for the impact theory.

  He believes that there may be around 1000 Pluto-to-Chiron-sized objects
remaining in a relatively stable dynamical zone just outside Neptune's 
orbit, beyond 35 AU or so.  1992 QB1 and 1993 FW are the first members
of this population to be found, in his model.  Note that such bodies
will be very dark, since if their surfaces are covered with methane 
frost, it will have photolyzed into very dark, long-chain hydrocarbons
by now.  The reason that Pluto has such a high albedo (around 0.5, I think)
is that its surface warms up JUST enough around perihelion to sublimate,
and when the atmosphere freezes out again, thirty years later, it forms
bright, new frost.  So any bodies much farther away than 30 AU are going
to be very hard to see.

  I hope I haven't made any errors in the transcription; if you see
a howling mistake, it's undoubtedly mine, not his.

  By the way, he's one of the top guns behind the Pluto Fast Flyby
mission (I think), and said that the current plans are to use a
Titan 4 to send the probe on "just about a rectilinear trajectory"
to Pluto (we were speaking loosely at the time...).  He'd like
to use a Proton, which gives a slightly smaller velocity but costs
MUCH less.  His figures: $500 Million for 2 Titan 4 launches (there
will be two separate probes, launched separately), or $120 Million
for 2 Proton launches.  He told a story about how the Soviets originally
offered to sell Proton launches for $30 Million each, but were forced
to increase their prices in the US in order to be allowed in the
marketplace.

  I'm just telling you what he said.

                          Michael

-- 
-----                                                    Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."    richmond@astro.princeton.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61414
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>
>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>
>1.	Calculators
>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)

Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.

>3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

Alejo Hausner (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)

(*) Richard Rhodes, "The making of the atomic bomb", Simon and

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61415
From: mrowley@pebbles.es.com (Michael Rowley)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca> jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes:
>Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
>assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
>always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
>If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
>a "NO-OP" command.
>
>Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
>nothing to do with jet propulsion.
>

	I don't know where you got this idea from, JPL's history dates back to 
	to the 1930s when a Caltech professor named Von Karman conducted  
	experiments in rocket PROPULSION with a group of graduate students
	on the present site of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.   The Army started
	funding the laboratory and had jurisdiction untill the late 1950s when
	NASA took over. The early research conducted at the Laboratory
	led to many applications the first being Jet-assisted takeoff rockets
	for aircraft.  I think this should explain where JPL got it's name, I
	should know, I worked there for five wonderful years.
----------mike. 
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@bnr.ca                        |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
>BNR Ltd.     |  bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars5!jcobban         |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61416
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/29/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                           April 23 - 29, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 22 and 23, delta Differenced One-way Range (DOR) passes were
performed over DSS-14/63 (Goldstone/Madrid 70 meter antennas) and DSS-14/43
(Goldstone/Canberra 70 meter antennas), respectively.  Initial results 
indicate the delta DOR pass on April 22 was unsuccessful due to ground
station hardware problems but the one on April 23 was successfully performed.

2.  On April 23, a cruise science Memory Readout (MRO) was performed for the
Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.  Analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

3.  On April 23, the spare power relay contacts were commanded closed via the
spacecraft stored sequence.  These relays were commanded closed by the CDS
(Command Data Subsystem) prior to launch and were again commanded closed to
preclude the possibility at Jupiter of the PPS relays/wiring being a
source of internal electrostatic charge (IESD).

4.  On April 26, cruise science Memory Readouts (MRO) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

5.  During the period from April 26 to April 27, a navigation cycle was
performed.  This navigation cycle provided near-continuous acquisition of
two-way doppler and ranging data during three consecutive passes of the
spacecraft over DSS-63, DSS-14, and DSS-43.

6.  On April 26, real-time commands were sent to test slew the Radio Relay
Antenna (RRA) in preparation for the mini-sequence slew test on April 28.
The RRA was slewed from approximately 3.5 degrees from stow to approximately
20.3 degrees.  Preliminary analysis indicated the antenna slewed to about 18
degrees which was well within the predicted range.  The RRA was commanded back
to approximately 15.2 degrees from stow.  Preliminary analysis indicated the
antenna reached about 15.8 degrees also well within the predicted range.  The
RRA motor temperature was at 1 degree C at the start of the activity and had
increased to 1.6 degrees C at its completion.

     After verifying proper RRA slewing, the RRA slew test mini-sequence was
uplinked to the spacecraft for execution on April 28.  Upon successful uplink,
a Delayed Action Command (DAC) was sent which will reposition the stator on
May 4 to its initial pre-test position.  Also, a DAC was sent to turn the
Two-Way Noncoherent (TWNC) on April 28 prior to the start of the RRA slew test
mini-sequence.

7.  On April 27, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

8.  On April 28, the RRA slew test executed nominally.  The spacecraft under
stored sequence control performed six RRA slews starting at about 16 degrees
from stow and going to 53 degrees, back to 25 degrees, then to 51 degrees,
back to 22 degrees, then to 48 degrees and then back to 21 degrees.  All of
the slews were well within the predicted range.  The RRA motor temperature was
at 2.3 degrees C at the start of the activity and had increased to 4.4
degrees C at its completion.  After completion of the RRA slews, real-time
commands were sent to reconfigure back to the pre-test configuration.

9.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 17 DN
(3.9 volts).  The DC measurement reads 134 DN (15.7 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

10. The Spacecraft status as of April 29, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  75 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 23 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 4 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 203 hours


GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  The first Galileo-GDS test of the MGDS V18.0 Command System (CMD) took
place April 27, 1993 with DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna).  The test went
well and demonstrated that the new command system interfaced with the new DSN
(Deep Space Network) Group 5 Command Processor Assembly (CPA).  The test was
successful and the next test for V18.0 CMD is scheduled for May 1, 1993 with
DSS-15 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna).

2.  The April System Engineers Monthly Report(SEMR)/Ground System Development
Office (GSDO) MMR was conducted Thursday, April 29.   A review of current
Project and Institutional (DSN and MOSO) system status was conducted.  On-going
cruise development plus the GSDO Phase 1 and 2 delivery schedules, past months
accomplishments  and potential problem areas were discussed.  No significant
schedule changes or significant problems were reported.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 29, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         187,745,300 km (1.26 AU)
	Distance from Sun           296,335,800 km (1.98 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          89,100 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       522,015,800 km
	Round Trip Light Time       20 minutes, 58 seconds

SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 29, 1993, a total of 70259 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65150  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5109 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 74 real time commands were transmitted: 73 were initiated
in the sequence design process and one initiated in the real time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to perform the initial
RRA slew test, uplink the RRA slew test mini-sequence, DACs to reposition the
stator and turn the TWNC on, reset the command loss timer, and execute the
RRA slew test.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61417
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:


>4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
>we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

Correct, we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

Therefore, we can't tell whether they're slightly extra solar
or not!

(which means that parallax can't tell us whether or not it's real close.)

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61418
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: HyperKnowledge

In article <29APR199311345485@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
-| In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes...
-| > 
-| > 
-| >ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP
-| 
-| I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to
-| answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these
-| people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today.
-| 
-| It is called labview by National Instruments. IT is a wonderful object
-| IT is a wonderful object oriented graphical programming language.
-| [some lines deleted]

I am afraid you are mis-directed. NeXTSTEP is an operating system as opposed to 
a package. I have read a little about it but since Steve Jobs does not seem to 
have the marketing capabilities of Bill Gates my info. is limited. Probably why
the far inferior Windows NT is going to be more widely distributed (but that
is another flame-ridden story). Some of the innovative features of NeXTSTEP are
binary compatibility across platforms (eg you can just copy your program from
a Sparc to a PC and it would run, as opposed to buying the version of the package
ported to a PC), graphical object-oriented design (its all WSIWIG postscript), 
supports parallel hetrogeneous processing, and best of all it is based around 
the Mach micro-kernel so you can make it look like Unix with X, or DOS, or NT or 
even VMS if you feel the need. No package out there comes even close. I hope 
people will subscribe to the HyperKnowledge project and NeXTSTEP finally
takes off in my lifetime :-)
-- 
| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine         |
| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk  |
| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61419
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:

>u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes:
>	   Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
>   see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.

>That's a very good point.  Perhaps none of the nearby stars have Oort
>clouds?  Alpha-centauri is a multiple-star system; you wouldn't expect
>an Oort cloud in it.

Sure about that? Maybe Proxima might cause problems, but at Oort
Cloud distances AC a and AC b together look like a point source.

Besides, even the solar system's Oort cloud is unstable over
geologic time, right, and needs to be replentished from somewhere
else, like the short period comets of the Kupier Belt?

(Or maybe I'm misremembering something I read or heard somewhere...)

>  What's the nearest single-star that is likely to
>have a planetary system?

Until we're able to perform a broad-band survey of nearby stars
to detect planets, we won't know enough to say whether or not
a single star has planets. And we're likely to find out about the
close ones first.

Heck, if neutron stars can have planets, anything can have planets.
(Or was that discovery disconfirmed?)

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61420
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were
>talking the other day about putting just one detector on one of the
>Pluto satellites.  THen we realized that the satellite alone is only
>carrying something like 200 pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector
>needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1 alone weighs about 200
>pounds itself.

>        We decided against it.
                                                        -jeremy
Are you talking about a single BATSE component, or
the whole thing?

You *could* propose a BATSE probe; launch two or three with ion
drive on various planetary trajectories... your resolution increaces
the more they're spaced apart. You could probably cheaply eject them
from the solar system with enough flybys and patience.

Things would start out slow, then slowly get better and better
resolution...
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61421
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93119.24999999  .00041555  00000-0  12437-3 0    90
2 22640  28.4657 249.3697 0008512 260.9747 152.1416 15.90732913   425
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61422
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

Original to: keithley@apple.com
G'day keithley@apple.com

21 Apr 93 22:25, keithley@apple.com wrote to All:

 kc> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley), via Kralizec 3:713/602


 kc> But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST
about a
 kc> low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
 kc> Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
 kc> stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
 kc> unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission.
 kc> Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was
$6-$9
 kc> billion for the US share.

 kc> moon for a year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a
 kc> cheaper/better way of delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface
within
 kc> the decade?  Anyone have a more precise guess about how much a year's
 kc> supply of consumables and equipment would weigh?

Why not modify the GD plan into Zurbrin's Compact Moon Direct scheme? let
one of those early flight carry an O2 plant and make your own.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-1204  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61423
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

Original to: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
G'day wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM

20 Apr 93 18:17, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM wrote to All:

 wAC> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 wAC> The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when
 wAC> the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would
 wAC> take the offer.

If we assume 6% inflation since 1969, that $25B would be worth about $100B
GD reckon a moon mission today could cost only $10B. Thats a factor of ten
reduction in cost. It might be possible to reduce that number futher by
using a few shortcuts ( Russian rockets?).   Asuming it gets built, I think
the Delta Clipper could very well achive the goal.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-1204  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61424
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
relaunching it:

(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
to thermal cycle stresses...)

I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
(I assume that they were caged for launch)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      				zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
GN&C R&D					Martin Marietta Astronautics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61425
From: tstroup@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <1rp0ht$g25@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
>sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
>to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
>or even curious about spaceflight. 

I disagree.  It think the average joe is interested/curious about spaceflight
but sees it as an elitist activity.  Not one which he is ever going to
participate in.

>All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
>which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
>document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
>term human habitation in space.

Why is the general public going to be interested in the technical details
of long term space habitation?  I like the idea of the study, but it should
be released to other scientists and engineers who will be able to use it.
If you want a general public document, you'll need a more general publication.

>I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to 
>succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
>(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
>chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
>to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

As one working on Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems, engineering
the microworld isn't the problem.  The problem is understanding the basic
chemical, biological and medical factors to be able to engineer them
efficiently.  For example, the only way we know how to produce food is from
plants and animals.  Food synthesis is not very far advanced.  So we have
to orbit a farm.  Well that's obviously not very efficient, so we use 
technology to reduce the mass and grow plants hydroponically instead of 
using dirt.  This is where the engineering comes in.  But new technologies
bring new basic questions that we don't have the answers to.  Like, in 
dirt we can grow tomatoes and lettuce right beside each other, but in 
hydroponics it turns out that you can't do that.  The lettuce growth is 
stunted when it's grown in the same hydroponic solution as tomatoes.  So 
now you have to consider what other plants are going to have similar
interactions.  This means some basic applied scientific research.  And that's
what needs to be done with all technologies that have been developed so far.
We also need to find out how they interact together.  That's where we are now.

>So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
>methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
>which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight. 

First you need to do the literature search.  There is a lot of information
out there.  Maybe we should just pick a specific area of long term habitation.
This could be useful, especially if we make it available on the net.  Then
we can look at methods of analyzing the technologies.

>Such a detailed
>literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
>and clearly important to existing space programs.
>In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
>various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
>This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
>basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
>and any other source!

Unless there is an unbelievable outpouring of interest on this on the net,
I think we should develop a detailed data base of the literature search 
first.  Then if we accomplish that we can go on to real analysis.  The data
base itself could be useful for future engineers.

That's my response Ken, what do you think?

Tim


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61426
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: Abyss-breathing fluids

"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to 
breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations 
required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning 
fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book.
I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).

	regards
		Ata <(|)>.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61427
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe

          

                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
                          
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe ) 

               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the 
          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O 
          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as 
          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis 
          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the 
          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and 
          Christopher Bird, 1973: 

               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same 
                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]

               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight 
                   and number.

               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper 
                   for three or four weeks.

               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.

               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for 
                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the 
                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier 
                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen, 
                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]

          
               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our 
          own bodies. 
          
               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with 
          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED 
          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much 
          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).  
          
               Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
          organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen, 
          oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. 
          
               The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by micro-organisms, 
          cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building bricks, etc..  
          
               The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron, 
          creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators 
          and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones). 
          
               Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY! 
          

               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the 
          currently accepted "laws" of physics, (including the law 
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH 
          temperatures and pressures.) 



          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In 
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE, 
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY", 
          1st Edition, 
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of 
               Science, 
          1972, 
          163 Pages, Illustrated, 
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638, 
               Binghamton, NY  13902 

          
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS", 
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 
          1973, 
          402 Pages, 
          Harper & Row, 
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is 
               FASCINATING! ]
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61428
From: bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski)
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?



There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:

1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we
determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?

2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will
we expend resources from earth to help them?

3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable,
what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought
back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?



-- 
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61429
From: oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly)
Subject: RE: Commercials on the Moon

u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes

> How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of
> people.

Arthur C. Clarke was way ahead of you on this one... he wrote a short story
(title?) in the 1950s describing exactly your proposal!

Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61430
From: 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw)
Subject: Single Launch Space Station

Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
>the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
>rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
>main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
>and jettisoned after ET separation.

Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
bring them down to use as spares?


Karl
sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61431
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: NASA budget and STS costs


What fraction of the NASA workforce is civil servant 
as opposed to contractor and what are the rules on
reduction in work force for civil servants?

eg, if say the shuttle program is terminated, how
much is payroll reduced and how?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61432
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>
>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>
>Jonathan

Jonathan, interesting questions.  Some wonder whether or not the moon could
have ever supported an atmosphere.  I'd be interested in knowing what
our geology/environmental sciences friends think.

As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance.
This was accomplished by a team of mountaineers who trained at high
altitudes for quite awhile (I think a few months) and then were flown by
helicopter from that training altitude to the equivalent altitude on
Mount Everest, where they began the ascent of our planet's highest peak
without oxygen tanks.  This is quite a feat of physiological endurance, because
if you or I tried to go to 20,000 feet and exert ourselves, we would probably
pass out, get altitude sick, and could even die from cerebral edema. So
this is the limit of low pressure.  High pressure situations would be
limited by the duration of time which it takes to slowly acclimate to a higher
pressure.  Skin divers would know alot about high pressure situations and
could tell you about how they safely make deep dives without getting the
bends.  Some military experiments have put people under several atmospheres of
pressure (not sure what the high limit was because the papers aren't in
front of me).  Usually at a certain point, the nitrogen in the air becomes
toxic to the body and you start acting idiotic.  Divers call this nitrogen
narcosis.  Those afflicted can do very dangerous and irrational things, like
taking off a diving mask and oxygen tank in order to talk to fish at 100 feet
under water.  (Hope any diving folk can elaborate on this matter, as I
am not a diving expert).

Mars cannot support human life without pressurization because the atmosphere
is too thin (1/100 th  our Earth's atmospheric density).  In addition,
the Mars atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.  Basically, you would need a 
pressure suit there, or you'd die from the low pressure.  Interesting huh?

ken
khayash@hsc.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61433
From: u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer)
Subject: Rocket Types


The other week I saw a TV program about the american space industry and NASA.
It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
particles for propolsion.
The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement
of a full scale rocket.
Did anybody see this program?
If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?

Thanx. 8-)

Glen Balmer...


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61434
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr29.201036.11256@den.mmc.com>, zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes...
>Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
>relaunching it:
> 
>(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
>There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
>I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
>order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
>items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
>retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
>have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
>might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
>to thermal cycle stresses...)
> 
>I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
>HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
>much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
>(I assume that they were caged for launch)?
> 

It would be nice if someone here from the HST program was talking instead
of all the speculation that is going on here. From what I understand from
Dr. Frank Six of the Marshall Space Flight Center there is no insrmountable
problem in bringing HST back. IT was designed that way to begin with.

Also it is my understanding that the solar arrays WILL be one of the items
replaced on this mission. The originals were built by Brit Aerospace and
I think the new ones are too. I am currently working with the guys at MSFC
that are in charge is the HST power system, although I have not spoken with
them in a long time about HST. 

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61435
From: newsdesk@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov (JPL Public Information)
Subject: JPL Info Summary/"Our Solar System at a Glance"

This file and other text and image files from JPL missions are
available from the JPL Info public access computer site,
reachable by Internet via anonymous ftp to pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov
(128.149.6.2); or by dialup modem to +1 (818) 354-1333, up to
9600 bits per second, parameters N-8-1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Our Solar System at a Glance

Information Summary 
PMS 010-A (JPL)
June 1991

JPL 410-34-1  6/91

NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institue of Technology
Pasadena, California


For a printed copy of this publication contact the public mail
office at the NASA center in your geographic region.



INTRODUCTION

     From our small world we have gazed upon the cosmic ocean for
untold thousands of years. Ancient astronomers observed points of
light that appeared to move among the stars. They called these
objects planets, meaning wanderers, and named them after Roman
deities -- Jupiter, king of the gods; Mars, the god of war;
Mercury, messenger of the gods; Venus, the god of love and
beauty, and Saturn, father of Jupiter and god of agriculture. The
stargazers also observed comets with sparkling tails, and meteors
or shooting stars apparently falling from the sky.

     Science flourished during the European Renaissance.
Fundamental physical laws governing planetary motion were
discovered, and the orbits of the planets around the Sun were
calculated. In the 17th century, astronomers pointed a new device
called the telescope at the heavens and made startling
discoveries.

     But the years since 1959 have amounted to a golden age of
solar system exploration. Advancements in rocketry after World
War II enabled our machines to break the grip of Earth's gravity
and travel to the Moon and to other planets.

     The United States has sent automated spacecraft, then
human-crewed expeditions, to explore the Moon. Our automated
machines have orbited and landed on Venus and Mars; explored the
Sun's environment; observed comets, and made close-range surveys
while flying past Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

     These travelers brought a quantum leap in our knowledge and
understanding of the solar system. Through the electronic sight
and other "senses" of our automated spacecraft, color and
complexion have been given to worlds that for centuries appeared
to Earth-bound eyes as fuzzy disks or indistinct points of light.
And dozens of previously unknown objects have been discovered.

     Future historians will likely view these pioneering flights
through the solar system as some of the most remarkable
achievements of the 20th century.
     

AUTOMATED SPACECRAFT

     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's)
automated spacecraft for solar system exploration come in many
shapes and sizes. While they are designed to fulfill separate and
specific mission objectives, the craft share much in common.

     Each spacecraft consists of various scientific instruments
selected for a particular mission, supported by basic subsystems
for electrical power, trajectory and orientation control, as well
as for processing data and communicating with Earth.

     Electrical power is required to operate the spacecraft
instruments and systems. NASA uses both solar energy from arrays
of photovoltaic cells and small nuclear generators to power its
solar system missions. Rechargeable batteries are employed for
backup and supplemental power.

     Imagine that a spacecraft has successfully journeyed
millions of miles through space to fly but one time near a
planet, only to have its cameras and other sensing instruments
pointed the wrong way as it speeds past the target! To help
prevent such a mishap, a subsystem of small thrusters is used to
control spacecraft.

     The thrusters are linked with devices that maintain a
constant gaze at selected stars. Just as Earth's early seafarers
used the stars to navigate the oceans, spacecraft use stars to
maintain their bearings in space. With the subsystem locked onto
fixed points of reference, flight controllers can keep a
spacecraft's scientific instruments pointed at the target body
and the craft's communications antennas pointed toward Earth. The
thrusters can also be used to fine-tune the flight path and speed
of the spacecraft to ensure that a target body is encountered at
the planned distance and on the proper trajectory.

     Between 1959 and 1971, NASA spacecraft were dispatched to
study the Moon and the solar environment; they also scanned the
inner planets other than Earth -- Mercury, Venus and Mars. These
three worlds, and our own, are known as the terrestrial planets
because they share a solid-rock composition.

     For the early planetary reconnaissance missions, NASA
employed a highly successful series of spacecraft called the
Mariners. Their flights helped shape the planning of later
missions. Between 1962 and 1975, seven Mariner missions conducted
the first surveys of our planetary neighbors in space.

     All of the Mariners used solar panels as their primary power
source. The first and the final versions of the spacecraft had
two wings covered with photovoltaic cells. Other Mariners were
equipped with four solar panels extending from their octagonal
bodies.

     Although the Mariners ranged from the Mariner 2 Venus
spacecraft, weighing in at 203 kilograms (447 pounds), to the
Mariner 9 Mars Orbiter, weighing in at 974 kilograms (2,147
pounds), their basic design remained quite similar throughout the
program. The Mariner 5 Venus spacecraft, for example, had
originally been a backup for the Mariner 4 Mars flyby. The
Mariner 10 spacecraft sent to Venus and Mercury used components
left over from the Mariner 9 Mars Orbiter program.

     In 1972, NASA launched Pioneer 10, a Jupiter spacecraft.
Interest was shifting to four of the outer planets -- Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune -- giant balls of dense gas quite
different from the terrestrial worlds we had already surveyed.

     Four NASA spacecraft in all -- two Pioneers and two Voyagers
-- were sent in the 1970s to tour the outer regions of our solar
system. Because of the distances involved, these travelers took
anywhere from 20 months to 12 years to reach their destinations.
Barring faster spacecraft, they will eventually become the first
human artifacts to journey to distant stars. Because the Sun's
light becomes so faint in the outer solar system, these travelers
do not use solar power but instead operate on electricity
generated by heat from the decay of radioisotopes.

     NASA also developed highly specialized spacecraft to revisit
our neighbors Mars and Venus in the middle and late 1970s. Twin
Viking Landers were equipped to serve as seismic and weather
stations and as biology laboratories. Two advanced orbiters --
descendants of the Mariner craft -- carried the Viking Landers
from Earth and then studied martian features from above.

     Two drum-shaped Pioneer spacecraft visited Venus in 1978.
The Pioneer Venus Orbiter was equipped with a radar instrument
that allowed it to "see" through the planet's dense cloud cover
to study surface features. The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe carried
four probes that were dropped through the clouds. The probes and
the main body -- all of which contained scientific instruments --
radioed information about the planet's atmosphere during their
descent toward the surface.

     A new generation of automated spacecraft -- including
Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars Observer, the Comet
Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) and Cassini -- is being
developed and sent out into the solar system to make detailed
examinations that will increase our understanding of our
neighborhood and our own planet.
     

The Sun

     A discussion of the objects in the solar system must start
with the Sun. The Sun dwarfs the other bodies, representing
approximately 99.86 percent of all the mass in the solar system;
all of the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust and gas add up
to only about 0.14 percent. This 0.14 percent represents the
material left over from the Sun's formation. One hundred and nine
Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its
interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

     As a star, the Sun generates energy through the process of
fusion. The temperature at the Sun's core is 15 million degrees
Celsius (27 million degrees Fahrenheit), and the pressure there
is 340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level. The Sun's
surface temperature of 5,500 degrees Celsius (10,000 degrees
Fahrenheit) seems almost chilly compared to its core-temperature.
At the solar core, hydrogen can fuse into helium, producing
energy. The Sun also produces a strong magnetic field and streams
of charged particles, both extending far beyond the planets.

     The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years
and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or
so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium
into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing
so large that it will swallow Earth. After a billion years as a
"red giant," it will suddenly collapse into a "white dwarf" --
the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion
years to cool off completely.

     Many spacecraft have explored the Sun's environment, but
none have gotten any closer to its surface than approximately
two-thirds of the distance from Earth to the Sun. Pioneers 5-11,
the Pioneer Venus Orbiter, Voyagers 1 and 2 and other spacecraft
have all sampled the solar environment. The Ulysses spacecraft,
launched on October 6, 1990, is a joint solar mission of NASA and
the European Space Agency. After using Jupiter's gravity to
change its trajectory, Ulysses will fly over the Sun's polar
regions during 1994 and 1995 and will perform a wide range of
studies using nine onboard scientific instruments.

     We are fortunate that the Sun is exactly the way it is. If
it were different in almost any way, life would almost certainly
never have developed on Earth.
     

Mercury

     Obtaining the first close-up views of Mercury was the
primary objective of the Mariner 10 spacecraft, launched on
November 3, 1973, from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. After a
journey of nearly five months, which included a flyby of Venus,
the spacecraft passed within 703 kilometers (437 miles) of the
solar system's innermost planet on March 29, 1974.

     Until Mariner 10, little was known about Mercury. Even the
best telescopic views from Earth showed Mercury as an indistinct
object lacking any surface detail. The planet is so close to the
Sun that it is usually lost in solar glare. When the planet is
visible on Earth's horizon just after sunset or before dawn, it
is obscured by the haze and dust in our atmosphere. Only radar
telescopes gave any hint of Mercury's surface conditions prior to
the voyage of Mariner 10.

     The photographs Mariner 10 radioed back to Earth revealed an
ancient, heavily cratered surface, closely resembling our own
Moon. The pictures also showed huge cliffs crisscrossing the
planet. These apparently were created when Mercury's interior
cooled and shrank, buckling the planet's crust. The cliffs are as
high as 3 kilometers (2 miles) and as long as 500 kilometers (310
miles).

     Instruments on Mariner 10 discovered that Mercury has a weak
magnetic field and a trace of atmosphere -- a trillionth the
density of Earth's atmosphere and composed chiefly of argon, neon
and helium. When the planet's orbit takes it closest to the Sun,
surface temperatures range from 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees
Fahrenheit) on Mercury's sunlit side to -183 degrees Celsius
(-298 degrees Fahrenheit) on the dark side. This range in surface
temperature -- 650 degrees Celsius (1,170 degrees Fahrenheit) --
is the largest for a single body in the solar system. Mercury
literally bakes and freezes at the same time.

     Days and nights are long on Mercury. The combination of a
slow rotation relative to the stars (59 Earth days) and a rapid
revolution around the Sun (88 Earth days) means that one Mercury
solar day takes 176 Earth days or two Mercury years -- the time
it takes the innermost planet to complete two orbits around the
Sun! 

     Mercury appears to have a crust of light silicate rock like
that of Earth. Scientists believe Mercury has a heavy iron-rich
core making up slightly less than half of its volume. That would
make Mercury's core larger, proportionally, than the Moon's core
or those of any of the planets.

     After the initial Mercury encounter, Mariner 10 made two
additional flybys -- on September 21, 1974, and March 16, 1975 --
before control gas used to orient the spacecraft was exhausted
and the mission was concluded. Each flyby took place at the same
local Mercury time when the identical half of the planet was
illuminated; as a result, we still have not seen one-half of the
planet's surface.
     

Venus

     Veiled by dense cloud cover, Venus -- our nearest planetary
neighbor -- was the first planet to be explored. The Mariner 2
spacecraft, launched on August 27, 1962, was the first of more
than a dozen successful American and Soviet missions to study the
mysterious planet. As spacecraft flew by or orbited Venus,
plunged into the atmosphere or gently landed on Venus' surface,
romantic myths and speculations about our neighbor were laid to
rest.

     On December 14, 1962, Mariner 2 passed within 34,839
kilometers (21,648 miles) of Venus and became the first
spacecraft to scan another planet; onboard instruments measured
Venus for 42 minutes. Mariner 5, launched in June 1967, flew much
closer to the planet. Passing within 4,094 kilometers (2,544
miles) of Venus on the second American flyby, Mariner 5's
instruments measured the planet's magnetic field, ionosphere,
radiation belts and temperatures. On its way to Mercury, Mariner
10 flew by Venus and transmitted ultraviolet pictures to Earth
showing cloud circulation patterns in the Venusian atmosphere.

     In the spring and summer of 1978, two spacecraft were
launched to further unravel the mysteries of Venus. On December 4
of the same year, the Pioneer Venus Orbiter became the first
spacecraft placed in orbit around the planet.

     Five days later, the five separate components making up the
second spacecraft -- the Pioneer Venus Multiprobe -- entered the
Venusian atmosphere at different locations above the planet. The
four small, independent probes and the main body radioed
atmospheric data back to Earth during their descent toward the
surface. Although designed to examine the atmosphere, one of the
probes survived its impact with the surface and continued to
transmit data for another hour.

     Venus resembles Earth in size, physical composition and
density more closely than any other known planet. However,
spacecraft have discovered significant differences as well. For
example, Venus' rotation (west to east) is retrograde (backward)
compared to the east-to-west spin of Earth and most of the other
planets.

     Approximately 96.5 percent of Venus' atmosphere (95 times as
dense as Earth's) is carbon dioxide. The principal constituent of
Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen. Venus' atmosphere acts like a
greenhouse, permitting solar radiation to reach the surface but
trapping the heat that would ordinarily be radiated back into
space. As a result, the planet's average surface temperature is
482 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit), hot enough to melt
lead.

     A radio altimeter on the Pioneer Venus Orbiter provided the
first means of seeing through the planet's dense cloud cover and
determining surface features over almost the entire planet.
NASA's Magellan spacecraft, launched on May 5, 1989, has been in
orbit around Venus since August 10, 1990. The spacecraft uses
radar-mapping techniques to provide ultrahigh-resolution images
of the surface.

     Magellan has revealed a landscape dominated by volcanic
features, faults and impact craters. Huge areas of the surface
show evidence of multiple periods of lava flooding with flows
lying on top of previous ones. An elevated region named Ishtar
Terra is a lava-filled basin as large as the United States. At
one end of this plateau sits Maxwell Montes, a mountain the size
of Mount Everest. Scarring the mountain's flank is a
100-kilometer (62-mile) wide, 2.5-kilometer (1.5-mile) deep
impact crater named Cleopatra. (Almost all features on Venus are
named for women; Maxwell Montes, Alpha Regio and Beta Regio are
the exceptions.) Craters survive on Venus for perhaps 400 million
years because there is no water and very little wind erosion.

     Extensive fault-line networks cover the planet, probably the
result of the same crustal flexing that produces plate tectonics
on Earth. But on Venus the surface temperature is sufficient to
weaken the rock, which cracks just about everywhere, preventing
the formation of major plates and large earthquake faults like
the San Andreas Fault in California.

     Venus' predominant weather pattern is a high-altitude,
high-speed circulation of clouds that contain sulfuric acid. At
speeds reaching as high as 360 kilometers (225 miles) per hour,
the clouds circle the planet in only four Earth days. The
circulation is in the same direction -- west to east -- as Venus'
slow rotation of 243 Earth days, whereas Earth's winds blow in
both directions -- west to east and east to west -- in six
alternating bands. Venus' atmosphere serves as a simplified
laboratory for the study of our weather.
     

Earth

     As viewed from space, our world's distinguishing
characteristics are its blue waters, brown and green land masses
and white clouds. We are enveloped by an ocean of air consisting
of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other
constituents. The only planet in the solar system known to harbor
life, Earth orbits the Sun at an average distance of 150 million
kilometers (93 million miles). Earth is the third planet from the
Sun and the fifth largest in the solar system, with a diameter
just a few hundred kilometers larger than that of Venus.

     Our planet's rapid spin and molten nickel-iron core give
rise to an extensive magnetic field, which, along with the
atmosphere, shields us from nearly all of the harmful radiation
coming from the Sun and other stars. Earth's atmosphere protects
us from meteors as well, most of which burn up before they can
strike the surface. Active geological processes have left no
evidence of the pelting Earth almost certainly received soon
after it formed -- about 4.6 billion years ago. Along with the
other newly formed planets, it was showered by space debris in
the early days of the solar system.

     From our journeys into space, we have learned much about our
home planet. The first American satellite -- Explorer 1 -- was
launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida on January 31, 1958, and
discovered an intense radiation zone, now called the Van Allen
radiation belts, surrounding Earth.

     Since then, other research satellites have revealed that our
planet's magnetic field is distorted into a tear-drop shape by
the solar wind -- the stream of charged particles continuously
ejected from the Sun. We've learned that the magnetic field does
not fade off into space but has definite boundaries. And we now
know that our wispy upper atmosphere, once believed calm and
uneventful, seethes with activity -- swelling by day and
contracting by night. Affected by changes in solar activity, the
upper atmosphere contributes to weather and climate on Earth.

     Besides affecting Earth's weather, solar activity gives rise
to a dramatic visual phenomenon in our atmosphere. When charged
particles from the solar wind become trapped in Earth's magnetic
field, they collide with air molecules above our planet's
magnetic poles. These air molecules then begin to glow and are
known as the auroras or the northern and southern lights.

     Satellites about 35,789 kilometers (22,238 miles) out in
space play a major role in daily local weather forecasting. These
watchful electronic eyes warn us of dangerous storms. Continuous
global monitoring provides a vast amount of useful data and
contributes to a better understanding of Earth's complex weather
systems.

     From their unique vantage points, satellites can survey
Earth's oceans, land use and resources, and monitor the planet's
health. These eyes in space have saved countless lives, provided
tremendous conveniences and shown us that we may be altering our
planet in dangerous ways.
     

The Moon

     The Moon is Earth's single natural satellite. The first
human footsteps on an alien world were made by American
astronauts on the dusty surface of our airless, lifeless
companion. In preparation for the human-crewed Apollo
expeditions, NASA dispatched the automated Ranger, Surveyor and
Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to study the Moon between 1964 and 1968.

     NASA's Apollo program left a large legacy of lunar materials
and data. Six two-astronaut crews landed on and explored the
lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, carrying back a collection
of rocks and soil weighing a total of 382 kilograms (842 pounds)
and consisting of more than 2,000 separate samples.

     From this material and other studies, scientists have
constructed a history of the Moon that includes its infancy.
Rocks collected from the lunar highlands date to about 4.0-4.3
billion years old. The first few million years of the Moon's
existence were so violent that few traces of this period remain.
As a molten outer layer gradually cooled and solidified into
different kinds of rock, the Moon was bombarded by huge asteroids
and smaller objects. Some of the asteroids were as large as Rhode
Island or Delaware, and their collisions with the Moon created
basins hundreds of kilometers across.

     This catastrophic bombardment tapered off approximately four
billion years ago, leaving the lunar highlands covered with huge,
overlapping craters and a deep layer of shattered and broken
rock. Heat produced by the decay of radioactive elements began to
melt the interior of the Moon at depths of about 200 kilometers
(125 miles) below the surface. Then, for the next 700 million
years -- from about 3.8 to 3.1 billion years ago -- lava rose
from inside the Moon. The lava gradually spread out over the
surface, flooding the large impact basins to form the dark areas
that Galileo Galilei, an astronomer of the Italian Renaissance,
called maria, meaning seas.

     As far as we can tell, there has been no significant
volcanic activity on the Moon for more than three billion years.
Since then, the lunar surface has been altered only by
micrometeorites, by the atomic particles from the Sun and stars,
by the rare impacts of large meteorites and by spacecraft and
astronauts. If our astronauts had landed on the Moon a billion
years ago, they would have seen a landscape very similar to the
one today. Thousands of years from now, the footsteps left by the
Apollo crews will remain sharp and clear.

     The origin of the Moon is still a mystery. Four theories
attempt an explanation: the Moon formed near Earth as a separate
body; it was torn from Earth; it formed somewhere else and was
captured by our planet's gravity, or it was the result of a
collision between Earth and an asteroid about the size of Mars.
The last theory has some good support but is far from certain.
     

Mars

     Of all the planets, Mars has long been considered the solar
system's prime candidate for harboring extraterrestrial life.
Astronomers studying the red planet through telescopes saw what
appeared to be straight lines crisscrossing its surface. These
observations -- later determined to be optical illusions -- led
to the popular notion that intelligent beings had constructed a
system of irrigation canals on the planet. In 1938, when Orson
Welles broadcast a radio drama based on the science fiction
classic War of the Worlds  by H.G. Wells, enough people believed
in the tale of invading martians to cause a near panic.

     Another reason for scientists to expect life on Mars had to
do with the apparent seasonal color changes on the planet's
surface. This phenomenon led to speculation that conditions might
support a bloom of martian vegetation during the warmer months
and cause plant life to become dormant during colder periods.

     So far, six American missions to Mars have been carried out.
Four Mariner spacecraft -- three flying by the planet and one
placed into martian orbit -- surveyed the planet extensively
before the Viking Orbiters and Landers arrived.

     Mariner 4, launched in late 1964, flew past Mars on July 14,
1965, coming within 9,846 kilometers (6,118 miles) of the
surface. Transmitting to Earth 22 close-up pictures of the
planet, the spacecraft found many craters and naturally occurring
channels but no evidence of artificial canals or flowing water.
Mariners 6 and 7 followed with their flybys during the summer of
1969 and returned 201 pictures. Mariners 4, 6 and 7 showed a
diversity of surface conditions as well as a thin, cold, dry
atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

     On May 30, 1971, the Mariner 9 Orbiter was launched on a
mission to make a year-long study of the martian surface. The
spacecraft arrived five and a half months after lift-off, only to
find Mars in the midst of a planet-wide dust storm that made
surface photography impossible for several weeks. But after the
storm cleared, Mariner 9 began returning the first of 7,329
pictures; these revealed previously unknown martian features,
including evidence that large amounts of water once flowed across
the surface, etching river valleys and flood plains.

     In August and September 1975, the Viking 1 and 2 spacecraft
-- each consisting of an orbiter and a lander -- lifted off from
Kennedy Space Center. The mission was designed to answer several
questions about the red planet, including, Is there life there?
Nobody expected the spacecraft to spot martian cities, but it was
hoped that the biology experiments on the Viking Landers would at
least find evidence of primitive life -- past or present.

     Viking Lander 1 became the first spacecraft to successfully
touch down on another planet when it landed on July 20, 1976,
while the United States was celebrating its Bicentennial. Photos
sent back from the Chryse Planitia ("Plains of Gold") showed a
bleak, rusty-red landscape. Panoramic images returned by the
lander revealed a rolling plain, littered with rocks and marked
by rippled sand dunes. Fine red dust from the martian soil gives
the sky a salmon hue. When Viking Lander 2 touched down on Utopia
Planitia on September 3, 1976, it viewed a more rolling landscape
than the one seen by its predecessor -- one without visible
dunes.

     The results sent back by the laboratory on each Viking
Lander were inconclusive. Small samples of the red martian soil
were tested in three different experiments designed to detect
biological processes. While some of the test results seemed to
indicate biological activity, later analysis confirmed that this
activity was inorganic in nature and related to the planet's soil
chemistry. Is there life on Mars? No one knows for sure, but the
Viking mission found no evidence that organic molecules exist
there.

     The Viking Landers became weather stations, recording wind
velocity and direction as well as atmospheric temperature and
pressure. Few weather changes were observed. The highest
temperature recorded by either craft was -14 degrees Celsius (7
degrees Fahrenheit) at the Viking Lander 1 site in midsummer.

     The lowest temperature, -120 degrees Celsius (-184 degrees
Fahrenheit), was recorded at the more northerly Viking Lander 2
site during winter. Near-hurricane wind speeds were measured at
the two martian weather stations during global dust storms, but
because the atmosphere is so thin, wind force is minimal. Viking
Lander 2 photographed light patches of frost -- probably
water-ice -- during its second winter on the planet.

     The martian atmosphere, like that of Venus, is primarily
carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and oxygen are present only in small
percentages. Martian air contains only about 1/1,000 as much
water as our air, but even this small amount can condense out,
forming clouds that ride high in the atmosphere or swirl around
the slopes of towering volcanoes. Local patches of early morning
fog can form in valleys.

     There is evidence that in the past a denser martian
atmosphere may have allowed water to flow on the planet. Physical
features closely resembling shorelines, gorges, riverbeds and
islands suggest that great rivers once marked the planet.

     Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos. They are small and
irregularly shaped and possess ancient, cratered surfaces. It is
possible the moons were originally asteroids that ventured too
close to Mars and were captured by its gravity.

     The Viking Orbiters and Landers exceeded by large margins
their design lifetimes of 120 and 90 days, respectively. The
first to fail was Viking Orbiter 2, which stopped operating on
July 24, 1978, when a leak depleted its attitude-control gas.
Viking Lander 2 operated until April 12, 1980, when it was shut
down because of battery degeneration. Viking Orbiter 1 quit on
August 7, 1980, when the last of its attitude-control gas was
used up. Viking Lander 1 ceased functioning on November 13, 1983.

     Despite the inconclusive results of the Viking biology
experiments, we know more about Mars than any other planet except
Earth. NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft, to be launched in
September 1992, will expand our knowledge of the martian
environment and lead to human exploration of the red planet. 
     

Asteroids

     The solar system has a large number of rocky and metallic
objects that are in orbit around the Sun but are too small to be
considered full-fledged planets. These objects are known as
asteroids or minor planets. Most, but not all, are found in a
band or belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Some have
orbits that cross Earth's path, and there is evidence that Earth
has been hit by asteroids in the past. One of the least eroded,
best preserved examples is the Barringer Meteor Crater near
Winslow, Arizona.

     Asteroids are material left over from the formation of the
solar system. One theory suggests that they are the remains of a
planet that was destroyed in a massive collision long ago. More
likely, asteroids are material that never coalesced into a
planet. In fact, if the estimated total mass of all asteroids was
gathered into a single object, the object would be only about
1,500 kilometers (932 miles) across -- less than half the
diameter of our Moon. 

     Thousands of asteroids have been identified from Earth. It
is estimated that 100,000 are bright enough to eventually be
photographed through Earth-based telescopes.

     Much of our understanding about asteroids comes from
examining pieces of space debris that fall to the surface of
Earth. Asteroids that are on a collision course with Earth are
called meteoroids. When a meteoroid strikes our atmosphere at
high velocity, friction causes this chunk of space matter to
incinerate in a streak of light known as a meteor. If the
meteoroid does not burn up completely, what's left strikes
Earth's surface and is called a meteorite. One of the best places
to look for meteorites is the ice cap of Antarctica.

     Of all the meteorites examined, 92.8 percent are composed of
silicate (stone), and 5.7 percent are composed of iron and
nickel; the rest are a mixture of the three materials. Stony
meteorites are the hardest to identify since they look very much
like terrestrial rocks.

     Since asteroids are material from the very early solar
system, scientists are interested in their composition.
Spacecraft that have flown through the asteroid belt have found
that the belt is really quite empty and that asteroids are
separated by very large distances.

     Current and future missions will fly by selected asteroids
for closer examination. The Galileo Orbiter, launched by NASA in
October 1989, will investigate main-belt asteroids on its way to
Jupiter. The Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) and Cassini
missions will also study these far-flung objects. Scheduled for
launch in the latter part of the 1990s, the CRAF and Cassini
missions are a collaborative project of NASA, the European Space
Agency and the federal space agencies of Germany and Italy, as
well as the United States Air Force and the Department of Energy.
One day, space factories will mine the asteroids for raw
materials.
     

Jupiter

     Beyond Mars and the asteroid belt, in the outer regions of
our solar system, lie the giant planets of Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus and Neptune. In 1972, NASA dispatched the first of four
spacecraft slated to conduct the initial surveys of these
colossal worlds of gas and their moons of ice and rock. Jupiter
was the first port of call.

     Pioneer 10, which lifted off from Kennedy Space Center in
March 1972, was the first spacecraft to penetrate the asteroid
belt and travel to the outer regions of the solar system. In
December 1973, it returned the first close-up images of Jupiter,
flying within 132,252 kilometers (82,178 miles) of the planet's
banded cloud tops. Pioneer 11 followed a year later. Voyagers 1
and 2 were launched in the summer of 1977 and returned
spectacular photographs of Jupiter and its family of satellites
during flybys in 1979.

     These travelers found Jupiter to be a whirling ball of
liquid hydrogen and helium, topped with a colorful atmosphere
composed mostly of gaseous hydrogen and helium. Ammonia ice
crystals form white Jovian clouds. Sulfur compounds (and perhaps
phosphorus) may produce the brown and orange hues that
characterize Jupiter's atmosphere.

     It is likely that methane, ammonia, water and other gases
react to form organic molecules in the regions between the
planet's frigid cloud tops and the warmer hydrogen ocean lying
below. Because of Jupiter's atmospheric dynamics, however, these
organic compounds -- if they exist -- are probably short-lived.

     The Great Red Spot has been observed for centuries through
telescopes on Earth. This hurricane-like storm in Jupiter's
atmosphere is more than twice the size of our planet. As a
high-pressure region, the Great Red Spot spins in a direction
opposite to that of low-pressure storms on Jupiter; it is
surrounded by swirling currents that rotate around the spot and
are sometimes consumed by it. The Great Red Spot might be a
million years old.

     Our spacecraft detected lightning in Jupiter's upper
atmosphere and observed auroral emissions similar to Earth's
northern lights at the Jovian polar regions. Voyager 1 returned
the first images of a faint, narrow ring encircling Jupiter.

     Largest of the solar system's planets, Jupiter rotates at a
dizzying pace -- once every 9 hours 55 minutes 30 seconds. The
massive planet takes almost 12 Earth years to complete a journey
around the Sun. With 16 known moons, Jupiter is something of a
miniature solar system.

     A new mission to Jupiter -- the Galileo Project -- is under
way. After a six- year cruise that takes the Galileo Orbiter once
past Venus, twice past Earth and the Moon and once past two
asteroids, the spacecraft will drop an atmospheric probe into
Jupiter's cloud layers and relay data back to Earth. The Galileo
Orbiter will spend two years circling the planet and flying close
to Jupiter's large moons, exploring in detail what the two
Pioneers and two Voyagers revealed.
     

Galilean Satellites

     In 1610, Galileo Galilei aimed his telescope at Jupiter and
spotted four points of light orbiting the planet. For the first
time, humans had seen the moons of another world. In honor of
their discoverer, these four bodies would become known as the
Galilean satellites or moons. But Galileo might have happily
traded this honor for one look at the dazzling photographs
returned by the Voyager spacecraft as they flew past these
planet-sized satellites.

     One of the most remarkable findings of the Voyager mission
was the presence of active volcanoes on the Galilean moon Io.
Volcanic eruptions had never before been observed on a world
other than Earth. The Voyager cameras identified at least nine
active volcanoes on Io, with plumes of ejected material extending
as far as 280 kilometers (175 miles) above the moon's surface.

     Io's pizza-colored terrain, marked by orange and yellow
hues, is probably the result of sulfur-rich materials brought to
the surface by volcanic activity. Volcanic activity on this
satellite is the result of tidal flexing caused by the
gravitational tug-of-war between Io, Jupiter and the other three
Galilean moons.

     Europa, approximately the same size as our Moon, is the
brightest Galilean satellite. The moon's surface displays a
complex array of streaks, indicating the crust has been
fractured. Caught in a gravitational tug-of-war like Io, Europa
has been heated enough to cause its interior ice to melt --
apparently producing a liquid-water ocean. This ocean is covered
by an ice crust that has formed where water is exposed to the
cold of space. Europa's core is made of rock that sank to its
center.

     Like Europa, the other two Galilean moons -- Ganymede and
Callisto -- are worlds of ice and rock. Ganymede is the largest
satellite in the solar system -- larger than the planets Mercury
and Pluto. The satellite is composed of about 50 percent water or
ice and the rest rock. Ganymede's surface has areas of different
brightness, indicating that, in the past, material oozed out of
the moon's interior and was deposited at various locations on the
surface.

     Callisto, only slightly smaller than Ganymede, has the
lowest density of any Galilean satellite, suggesting that large
amounts of water are part of its composition. Callisto is the
most heavily cratered object in the solar system; no activity
during its history has erased old craters except more impacts.

     Detailed studies of all the Galilean satellites will be
performed by the Galileo Orbiter.
     

Saturn

     No planet in the solar system is adorned like Saturn. Its
exquisite ring system is unrivaled. Like Jupiter, Saturn is
composed mostly of hydrogen. But in contrast to the vivid colors
and wild turbulence found in Jovian clouds, Saturn's atmosphere
has a more subtle, butterscotch hue, and its markings are muted
by high-altitude haze. Given Saturn's somewhat placid-looking
appearance, scientists were surprised at the high-velocity
equatorial jet stream that blows some 1,770 kilometers (1,100
miles) per hour.

     Three American spacecraft have visited Saturn. Pioneer 11
sped by the planet and its moon Titan in September 1979,
returning the first close-up images. Voyager 1 followed in
November 1980, sending back breathtaking photographs that
revealed for the first time the complexities of Saturn's ring
system and moons. Voyager 2 flew by the planet and its moons in
August 1981.

     The rings are composed of countless low-density particles
orbiting individually around Saturn's equator at progressive
distances from the cloud tops. Analysis of spacecraft radio waves
passing through the rings showed that the particles vary widely
in size, ranging from dust to house-sized boulders. The rings are
bright because they are mostly ice and frosted rock.

     The rings might have resulted when a moon or a passing body
ventured too close to Saturn. The unlucky object would have been
torn apart by great tidal forces on its surface and in its
interior. Or the object may not have been fully formed to begin
with and disintegrated under the influence of Saturn's gravity. A
third possibility is that the object was shattered by collisions
with larger objects orbiting the planet.

     Unable either to form into a moon or to drift away from each
other, individual ring particles appear to be held in place by
the gravitational pull of Saturn and its satellites. These
complex gravitational interactions form the thousands of ringlets
that make up the major rings.

     Radio emissions quite similar to the static heard on an AM
car radio during an electrical storm were detected by the Voyager
spacecraft. These emissions are typical of lightning but are
believed to be coming from Saturn's ring system rather than its
atmosphere, where no lightning was observed. As they had at
Jupiter, the Voyagers saw a version of Earth's auroras near
Saturn's poles.

     The Voyagers discovered new moons and found several
satellites that share the same orbit. We learned that some moons
shepherd ring particles, maintaining Saturn's rings and the gaps
in the rings. Saturn's 18th moon was discovered in 1990 from
images taken by Voyager 2 in 1981. 

     Voyager 1 determined that Titan has a nitrogen-based
atmosphere with methane and argon -- one more like Earth's in
composition than the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Mars and
Venus. Titan's surface temperature of -179 degrees Celsius (-290
degrees Fahrenheit) implies that there might be water-ice islands
rising above oceans of ethane-methane liquid or sludge.
Unfortunately, Voyager's cameras could not penetrate the moon's
dense clouds.

     Continuing photochemistry from solar radiation may be
converting Titan's methane to ethane, acetylene and -- in
combination with nitrogen -- hydrogen cyanide. The latter
compound is a building block of amino acids. These conditions may
be similar to the atmospheric conditions of primeval Earth
between three and four billion years ago. However, Titan's
atmospheric temperature is believed to be too low to permit
progress beyond this stage of organic chemistry.

     The exploration of Saturn will continue with the Cassini
mission. The Cassini spacecraft will orbit the planet and will
also deploy a probe called Huygens, which will be dropped into
Titan's atmosphere and fall to the surface. Cassini will use the
probe as well as radar to peer through Titan's clouds and will
spend years examining the Saturnian system.
     

Uranus

     In January 1986, four and a half years after visiting
Saturn, Voyager 2 completed the first close-up survey of the
Uranian system. The brief flyby revealed more information about
Uranus and its retinue of icy moons than had been gleaned from
ground observations since the planet's discovery over two
centuries ago by the English astronomer William Herschel.

     Uranus, third largest of the planets, is an oddball of the
solar system. Unlike the other planets (with the exception of
Pluto), this giant lies tipped on its side with its north and
south poles alternately facing the sun during an 84-year swing
around the solar system. During Voyager 2's flyby, the south pole
faced the Sun. Uranus might have been knocked over when an
Earth-sized object collided with it early in the life of the
solar system.

     Voyager 2 found that Uranus' magnetic field does not follow
the usual north-south axis found on the other planets. Instead,
the field is tilted 60 degrees and offset from the planet's
center, a phenomenon that on Earth would be like having one
magnetic pole in New York City and the other in the city of
Djakarta, on the island of Java in Indonesia.

     Uranus' atmosphere consists mainly of hydrogen, with some 12
percent helium and small amounts of ammonia, methane and water
vapor. The planet's blue color occurs because methane in its
atmosphere absorbs all other colors. Wind speeds range up to 580
kilometers (360 miles) per hour, and temperatures near the cloud
tops average -221 degrees Celsius (-366 degrees Fahrenheit).

     Uranus' sunlit south pole is shrouded in a kind of
photochemical "smog" believed to be a combination of acetylene,
ethane and other sunlight-generated chemicals. Surrounding the
planet's atmosphere and extending thousands of kilometers into
space is a mysterious ultraviolet sheen known as "electroglow."

     Approximately 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) below Uranus'
cloud tops, there is thought to be a scalding ocean of water and
dissolved ammonia some 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) deep.
Beneath this ocean is an Earth-sized core of heavier materials.

     Voyager 2 discovered 10 new moons, 16-169 kilometers (10-105
miles) in diameter, orbiting Uranus. The five previously known --
Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon -- range in size from
520 to 1,610 kilometers (323 to 1,000 miles) across. Representing
a geological showcase, these five moons are half-ice, half-rock
spheres that are cold and dark and show evidence of past
activity, including faulting and ice flows.

     The most remarkable of Uranus' moons is Miranda. Its surface
features high cliffs as well as canyons, crater-pocked plains and
winding valleys. The sharp variations in terrain suggest that,
after the moon formed, it was smashed apart by a collision with
another body -- an event not unusual in our solar system, which
contains many objects that have impact craters or are fragments
from large impacts. What is extraordinary is that Miranda
apparently reformed with some of the material that had been in
its interior exposed on its surface.

     Uranus was thought to have nine dark rings; Voyager 2 imaged
11. In contrast to Saturn's rings, which are composed of bright
particles, Uranus' rings are primarily made up of dark,
boulder-sized chunks.
     

Neptune

     Voyager 2 completed its 12-year tour of the solar system
with an investigation of Neptune and the planet's moons. On
August 25, 1989, the spacecraft swept to within 4,850 kilometers
(3,010 miles) of Neptune and then flew on to the moon Triton.
During the Neptune encounter it became clear that the planet's
atmosphere was more active than Uranus'. 

     Voyager 2 observed the Great Dark Spot, a circular storm the
size of Earth, in Neptune's atmosphere. Resembling Jupiter's
Great Red Spot, the storm spins counterclockwise and moves
westward at almost 1,200 kilometers (745 miles) per hour. Voyager
2 also noted a smaller dark spot and a fast-moving cloud dubbed
the "Scooter," as well as high-altitude clouds over the main
hydrogen and helium cloud deck. The highest wind speeds of any
planet were observed, up to 2,400 kilometers (1,500 miles) per
hour.

     Like the other giant planets, Neptune has a gaseous hydrogen
and helium upper layer over a liquid interior. The planet's core
contains a higher percentage of rock and metal than those of the
other gas giants. Neptune's distinctive blue appearance, like
Uranus' blue color, is due to atmospheric methane.

     Neptune's magnetic field is tilted relative to the planet's
spin axis and is not centered at the core. This phenomenon is
similar to Uranus' magnetic field and suggests that the fields of
the two giants are being generated in an area above the cores,
where the pressure is so great that liquid hydrogen assumes the
electrical properties of a metal. Earth's magnetic field, on the
other hand, is produced by its spinning metallic core and is only
slightly tilted and offset relative to its center.

     Voyager 2 also shed light on the mystery of Neptune's rings.
Observations from Earth indicated that there were arcs of
material in orbit around the giant planet. It was not clear how
Neptune could have arcs and how these could be kept from
spreading out into even, unclumped rings. Voyager 2 detected
these arcs, but they were, in fact, part of thin, complete rings.
A number of small moons could explain the arcs, but such bodies
were not spotted.

     Astronomers had identified the Neptunian moons Triton in
1846 and Nereid in 1949. Voyager 2 found six more. One of the new
moons -- Proteus -- is actually larger than Nereid, but since
Proteus orbits close to Neptune, it was lost in the planet's
glare for observers on Earth.

      Triton circles Neptune in a retrograde orbit in under six
days. Tidal forces on Triton are causing it to spiral slowly
towards the planet. In 10 to 100 million years (a short time in
astronomical terms), the moon will be so close that Neptunian
gravity will tear it apart, forming a spectacular ring to
accompany the planet's modest current rings.

     Triton's landscape is as strange and unexpected as those of
Io and Miranda. The moon has more rock than its counterparts at
Saturn and Uranus. Triton's mantle is probably composed of
water-ice, but the moon's crust is a thin veneer of nitrogen and
methane. The moon shows two dramatically different types of
terrain: the so-called "cantaloupe" terrain and a receding ice
cap. 

     Dark streaks appear on the ice cap. These streaks are the
fallout from geyser-like volcanic vents that shoot nitrogen gas
and dark, fine-grained particles to heights of 2 to 8 kilometers
(1 to 5 miles). Triton's thin atmosphere, only 1/70,000th as
thick as Earth's, has winds that carry the dark particles and
deposit them as streaks on the ice cap -- the coldest surface yet
found in the solar system (-235 degrees Celsius, -391 degrees
Fahrenheit). Triton might be more like Pluto than any other
object spacecraft have so far visited.
     

Pluto

     Pluto is the most distant of the planets, yet the
eccentricity of its orbit periodically carries it inside
Neptune's orbit, where it has been since 1979 and where it will
remain until March 1999. Pluto's orbit is also highly inclined --
tilted 17 degrees to the orbital plane of the other planets.

     Discovered in 1930, Pluto appears to be little more than a
celestial snowball. The planet's diameter is calculated to be
approximately 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles), only two-thirds the
size of our Moon. Ground-based observations indicate that Pluto's
surface is covered with methane ice and that there is a thin
atmosphere that may freeze and fall to the surface as the planet
moves away from the Sun. Observations also show that Pluto's spin
axis is tipped by 122 degrees. 

     The planet has one known satellite, Charon, discovered in
1978. Charon's surface composition is different from Pluto's: the
moon appears to be covered with water-ice rather than methane
ice. Its orbit is gravitationally locked with Pluto, so both
bodies always keep the same hemisphere facing each other. Pluto's
and Charon's rotational period and Charon's period of revolution
are all 6.4 Earth days. 

     Although no spacecraft have ever visited Pluto, NASA is
currently exploring the possibility of such a mission.
     

Comets

     The outermost members of the solar system occasionally pay a
visit to the inner planets. As asteroids are the rocky and
metallic remnants of the formation of the solar system, comets
are the icy debris from that dim beginning and can survive only
far from the Sun. Most comet nuclei reside in the Oort Cloud, a
loose swarm of objects in a halo beyond the planets and reaching
perhaps halfway to the nearest star.

     Comet nuclei orbit in this frozen abyss until they are
gravitationally perturbed into new orbits that carry them close
to the Sun. As a nucleus falls inside the orbits of the outer
planets, the volatile elements of which it is made gradually
warm; by the time the nucleus enters the region of the inner
planets, these volatile elements are boiling. The nucleus itself
is irregular and only a few miles across, and is made principally
of water-ice with methane and ammonia -- materials very similar
to those composing the moons of the giant planets.

     As these materials boil off of the nucleus, they form a coma
or cloud-like "head" that can measure tens of thousands of
kilometers across. The coma grows as the comet gets closer to the
Sun. The stream of charged particles coming from the Sun pushes
on this cloud, blowing it back like a flag in the wind and giving
rise to the comet's "tails." Gases and ions are blown directly
back from the nucleus, but dust particles are pushed more slowly.
As the nucleus continues in its orbit, the dust particles are
left behind in a curved arc.

     Both the gas and dust tails point away from the Sun; in
effect, the comet chases its tails as it recedes from the Sun.
The tails can reach 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) in
length, but the total amount of material contained in this
dramatic display would fit in an ordinary suitcase. Comets --
from the Latin cometa, meaning "long-haired" -- are essentially
dramatic light shows.

     Some comets pass through the solar system only once, but
others have their orbits gravitationally modified by a close
encounter with one of the giant outer planets. These latter
visitors can enter closed elliptical orbits and repeatedly return
to the inner solar system.

     Halley's Comet is the most famous example of a relatively
short period comet, returning on an average of once every 76
years and orbiting from beyond Neptune to within Venus' orbit.
Confirmed sightings of the comet go back to 240 B.C. This regular
visitor to our solar system is named for Sir Edmond Halley,
because he plotted the comet's orbit and predicted its return,
based on earlier sightings and Newtonian laws of motion. His name
became part of astronomical lore when, in 1759, the comet
returned on schedule. Unfortunately, Sir Edmond did not live to
see it.

     A comet can be very prominent in the sky if it passes
comparatively close to Earth. Unfortunately, on its most recent
appearance, Halley's Comet passed no closer than 62.4 million
kilometers (38.8 million miles) from our world. The comet was
visible to the naked eye, especially for viewers in the southern
hemisphere, but it was not spectacular. Comets have been so
bright, on rare occasions, that they were visible during daytime.
Historically, comet sightings have been interpreted as bad omens
and have been artistically rendered as daggers in the sky.

     The Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) spacecraft will
become the first traveler to fly close to a comet nucleus and
remain in proximity to it as they both approach the Sun. CRAF
will observe the nucleus as it becomes active in the growing
sunlight and begins to have its lighter elements boil off and
form a coma and tails. Several spacecraft have flown by comets at
high speed; the first was NASA's International Cometary Explorer
in 1985. An armada of five spacecraft (two Japanese, two Soviet
and the Giotto spacecraft from the European Space Agency) flew by
Halley's Comet in 1986.
     

Conclusion

     Despite their efforts to peer across the vast distances of
space through an obscuring atmosphere, scientists of the past had
only one body they could study closely -- Earth. But since 1959,
spaceflight through the solar system has lifted the veil on our
neighbors in space. 

     We have learned more about our solar system and its members
than anyone had in the previous thousands of years. Our automated
spacecraft have traveled to the Moon and to all the planets
beyond our world except Pluto; they have observed moons as large
as small planets, flown by comets and sampled the solar
environment. Astronomy books now include detailed pictures of
bodies that were only smudges in the largest telescopes for
generations. We are lucky to be alive now to see these strange
and beautiful places and objects.

     The knowledge gained from our journeys through the solar
system has redefined traditional Earth sciences like geology and
meteorology and spawned an entirely new discipline called
comparative planetology. By studying the geology of planets,
moons, asteroids and comets, and comparing differences and
similarities, we are learning more about the origin and history
of these bodies and the solar system as a whole.

     We are also gaining insight into Earth's complex weather
systems. By seeing how weather is shaped on other worlds and by
investigating the Sun's activity and its influence throughout the
solar system, we can better understand climatic conditions and
processes on Earth.

     We will continue to learn and benefit as our automated
spacecraft explore our neighborhood in space. One current mission
is mapping Venus; others are flying between worlds and will reach
the Sun and Jupiter after complex trajectory adjustments. Future
missions are planned for Mars, Saturn, a comet and the asteroid
belt.

     We can also look forward to the time when humans will once
again set foot on an alien world. Although astronauts have not
been back to the Moon since December 1972, plans are being
formulated for our return to the lunar landscape and for the
human exploration of Mars and even the establishment of martian
outposts. One day, taking a holiday may mean spending a week at a
lunar base or a martian colony!

- end -
     

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61436
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)


Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
no extra MMU's.   

WHy not do this?

	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.

Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.

If NASA  could build Mercury in 13 months,  they should be able to make
an SMT in 9.   

How much would it need?

Guidance package.  Use a  Voyager spare.   

Thruster gear,  Use H2O2,  or LOX/LH.

Bus  Use a Commsat.

Grapple fixture.   Use a stripped down Canadarm.

Comms package.   SPare  X-band  omni  gear.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61437
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 04/29/93
From: simon@otago.ac.nz (The Arch-Deviant)

In article <29APR199321594919@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> 2.  On April 23, a cruise science Memory Readout (MRO) was performed for the
> Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.  Analysis indicates the data was received
> properly.

Am I correct in assuming that the science instruments buffer their acquired
data in onboard RAM, which is then downloaded upon receipt of the MRO command?

Simon Brady                 You don't need a lot of fancy hardware for
University of Otago         Virtual Reality - just a walkman and an
Dunedin, New Zealand        attitude

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61438
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr29.201036.11256@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
>order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
>items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
>retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand...

No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
to the array-flapping problems.

The retrieval problems are exactly as stated:  it would be costly, would
involve extensive downtime (and the worry of someone finding a reason not
to re-launch it), and would unnecessarily expose the telescope to a lot
of mechanical stresses and possibilities for contamination.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61439
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Teflon Development. 

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) Pontificated: 
>
>Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
>bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
>needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
>gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
>inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.
>
To split a split hair, I believe that teflon (-CF4- monomer) was
"discovered" by accident when someone I don't remember
found what he thought was a liquid (or gas?) had turned to a
solid...

It just happend to fit the bill for the above use...

I'm crossposting to sci.materials so perhaps someone in the know
might elaborate...


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61440
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <1rnaih$jvj@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> 
> Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
> the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
> has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
> no extra MMU's.   
> 
> WHy not do this?
> 
> 	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
> 
> Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
> clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
> 
> If NASA  could build Mercury in 13 months,  they should be able to make
> an SMT in 9.   
> 
> How much would it need?
> 
> Guidance package.  Use a  Voyager spare.   
> 
> Thruster gear,  Use H2O2,  or LOX/LH.
> 
> Bus  Use a Commsat.
> 
> Grapple fixture.   Use a stripped down Canadarm.
> 
> Comms package.   SPare  X-band  omni  gear.
> 
> pat


And then why not build a space dock..
Either inflated or not.. some place a crew can work on a item without having to 
wear much of the items they have to for spae.. such as most of he bulky suit..
More idea to come..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61441
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Deployable Space Dock..

Idea for repair of satellites:

Warning I am getting creative again:

Why not build a inflatable space dock.

Basically deploy one side of the space dock (using a scissor shaped structure,
saw it on beyond 2000), then maneuer the side to next to the satellite and then
move the rest of the dock around the satellite and seal it..
The inflate the dock with a gas (is does not have to be oxygen, just neeeds to
be non-flameble, non-damaging to the satellite and abel to maintain heat),
thenheat the space dock (for the astronaut who will be working onthe satellite
to be able to not have to wear the normal bulky space suit, but a much striped
down own).. 

I know this might take a slot of work or not??? Or just to plain wierd, but
ideas need to be thought of, for where is tomorrow, but in the imagination of
the present..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61442
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Private Support of Exploration (Russian America)

Commericial support for exploration examples:

Also much if Baranovs exploration and Utilization of Alaska (Russian America,
also included parts of Washington state, Oregon, and N. California) was doen by
private funds (yes some royal governmental funds at times..)..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61443
From: rw@astro.Princeton.EDU (Ralph A.M.J. Wijers)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.


I feel compelled to complain: the statement that recent observations
rule out merging neutron stars as sources of gamma-ray bursts is
utterly false, even though it is popular enough to make it to
BATSE press releases.
The idea behind the statement is as follows: 
     "if you smack two neutron
      stars together, or have a neutron star be gobbled up by a black hole,
      a lot of energy is released, enough for a gamma-ray burst at a
      cosmological distance. But, so the reasoning continues, this energy 
      is released below a lot of matter, so the radiation becomes
      thermalized and you expect to see roughly a blackbody spectrum.
      The observed spectra are strongly non-thermal, so this model must
      be wrong."
As so often, the fault lies with the imagination of the person who
was trying to prove the model wrong rather than with the model. It
may be that the initial energy release is not seen as a gamma-ray
burst, but the 'fireball' of energy and matter that is created
may spew out a relativistic flow. When this slams into the surrounding 
medium, a strong flux of non-thermal gamma rays results, which may
carry off a substantial fraction of the initial total energy. All
this is not my idea: it is in a series of papers by Martin Rees,
Peter Meszaros (sorry for the missing accents:-) and co-workers.
It is certainly not a complete model, but it may well be the best one
around (summing over all proposed distance scales). An alternative
proposal for what creates the initial fireball, by the way, is the 
so-called 'failed supernovae' scenario by Stan Woosley, in which
a very massive star at the end of its life collapses to a black
hole. If the stellar core was rotating, part of the infalling matter
will be temporarily halted because it is supported by centrifugal
force, and form a very dense neutron torus that accretes onto the
black hole. This beast may spew out a jet along the rotation axis,
which again constitutes relativistic flow. The rate of such
events may be much higher than that of neutron star mergers,
but the flux may be more strongly beamed, so that the net rate
of bursts observed on Earth stays the same between the two
scenarios, but the energy released per event can be a lot less
in the failed supernova scenario.

On another note: I do believe that the distance scale must 
ultimately be resolved via some classical astronomical method
such as finding counterparts to the bursts at other wavelengths,
or finding a definitive signature of some known class of
objects in the distribution of positions and fluxes. Theorists
have historically not been too successfull in finding the
distance of any object by proving that there is only one
possible way in which the object can work, and therefore
it *must* be so-and-so.

Ralph Wijers


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61444
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:

>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> >1.	Calculators
>> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
>> 
>> I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
>> many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
>> I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
>> a good thing.
>> 
>> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
>> and of itself.

>I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is
>inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it
>cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether
>something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become
>increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!). 
>They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want
>something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.

I think to some extent this is a case of stooping to their level.  You assume
that the general public "can't handle the truth" and then, based on this 
assumption, go for the fluff arguments.  Then someone, who can understand a
good argument, comes along and asks "why don't you just develop the spinoffs?"
or "why can't we just get our spinoffs from some other program, like the
military?"  There are some good arguments for space development without relying
on its side effects.  I'm not ignoring the value of spinoffs.  I simply think
that the general public deserves more credit than you give them.

>BTW: don't forget Velcro...

And if you're going to use spinoffs you better make darn sure you are right.
Teflon has been around since before NASA.  As I understand it, Velcro was 
conceptualized by a french doctor who went walking in the woods and took the
trouble to wonder how burrs stick to your clothes.  Certainly velcro was 
available on hiking equipment by the early to mid sixties.  I would need to 
see some good evidence before I believe that either of these would not be here
today without NASA.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61445
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

Being wierd again, so be warned:

Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??
It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
without having much of the solar system to worry about..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61446
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
|
|	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
|Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
|the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
|weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
>bay.
>

a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,
and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out
on the HST in the next 9 months.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61447
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
|prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|
|>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
|>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
|>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
|>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
|>|much energy in one second? 
|>>                                                -jeremy
|
|>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.
|
|It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
|in the interstellar medium.)
|


How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection?
and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61448
From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick Roeber)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu>, STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
> I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
> For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
> dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
> wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
> that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

Do you know of the world-wide-web?  This is a global hypertext (well, 
hypermedia) network running on the internet.  One of the nice things
about it is that is understands and incorporates virtually all of the
other systems being used, like WAIS, Gopher, FTP, Archie, etc.  It
is usually quite easy to add existing resources to the web.

If you'd like to explore, I'd suggest getting the XMosaic program,
written at the NCSA.  It's an X-windows web browser, and is pretty
slick.  It can understand and cope with more than text: gif, jpeg, mpeg,
audio, etc.  There are other browsers, including a text-mode browser
for people stuck on a text terminal, but I'm most familliar with mosaic.

Under the page "The World-Wide Web Virtual Library: Subject Catalogue"
(this is available under the Documents menu in mosaic, or by any
browser via the URL 
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/Overview.html )
there is a subject "Space Science."  Currently this points to a
page under construction, with only the NASA JPL FTP archive.  I've
volunteered to take over this page, and in fact I have a replacement
with all sorts of information pointers (mostly gleaned from the
sci.space FAQ).  As soon as the overworked "Subject Catalogue" 
maintainer switches the "Space Science" pointer, it'll be visible.

I'll post a short note when this happens.

-- 
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 20 82 99
--  
"Sorry, baby, I can't take you to the pizza joint tonight, I've got to go
back to the lab and split the atom." -- Ayn Rand, "What is Romanticism?"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61449
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu> STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
>I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
>For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
>dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
>wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
>that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

Robert McElwaine is the authoritative source of scientific data on Internet.
He can be reached alt.fan.mc-elwaine...

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      "I post, therefore I ARMM"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61450
From: devdjn@space.alcbel.be
Subject: Re: Statement by NASA Administrator Daniel S. G

If this man Clark is a NASA administrator then god save NASA. Of course
the Shuttles record is unrivaled !  There is only one Shuttle. Furthermore,
there is only likely to be one Shuttle now that Hermes and Boron are 
effectively cancelled.

These officials should spend more of their time explaining to their
European and Asian partners how we are expected to believe in them
when their paymasters change their minds on major international
projects everytime a new US administration takes office (considering
the major impacts this has on the European and Asian (Japanese)
industry). It is also appreciated how this affects American
industry. I am of course talking about Space Stattion Freedom.

---
Dennis Newport,                  email: devdjn@space.alcbel.be
Alcatel Bell Telephone,
Berkenrodelei 33,                phone: (+32) 3/829.5488
2660 Hoboken,
Belgium.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61451
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?

In article <1993Apr29.162132.28366@hemlock.cray.com> bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski) writes:
>
>
>There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:
>
>1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we
>determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?
>
   Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few
years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in
Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The
State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien
invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens),
the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was
very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything
intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a
philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I
believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral
person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a
person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.

>2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will
>we expend resources from earth to help them?
>
   I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The
human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does
underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The
usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the
culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.

>3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable,
>what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought
>back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?
>
>-- 
>Have a day,
>
>  @   @
>   ( )     bobo

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61452
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> |
> |	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
> |Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
> |the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
> |weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
>>bay.
>>
> 
> a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,

I do not understand what you are saying here.  What is improved, what 
is Significant, and what does this have to do with carrying more 
equipment on a servicing mission?  Also, as implied by other posters, why 
do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway?  Maybe you have 
something here, but could you please clarify it for us on the net? 

> and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
> so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
> array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out

From what I've heard, the motors are fine - it is one of the two 
sets of electronics that control the motors that needs a fix.  The 
motors and electronics are separate pieces of hardware.  I expect 
to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. 

> on the HST in the next 9 months.
> 
> pat
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61453
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu>, STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
-| I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
-| For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
-| dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
-| wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
-| that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.
-| 
-| THANKS!
-| 
-|   KEITH MALINOWSKI
-|   STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
-|   P.O. Box 2472
-|   Stockton State College
-|   Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Try doing a keyword search under Gopher using Veronica or accessing a 
World Wide Web server. Also finger yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu for a list
of Internet resources which includes 2-3 sites with Space-specific 
information. I am sure Ron Baalke will have told you about what is
available at JPL etc..

	best regards
		Ata <(|)>.
-- 
| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine,        |
|               Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND                  |
| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk  |
| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |
| UUCP/Usenet                       atae%spva.ph.ic@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk        |

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61454
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission?

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> Being wierd again, so be warned:

Being what?  Oh, _weird_.  OK, I'm warned!

> Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
> keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

Keep watch for what?

> How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
> around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??

Oh, the several tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars it would cost
to "record things" there.  And I'd prefer a manned mission, anyway.

> It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
> objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
> without having much of the solar system to worry about..

We've already got a pretty good platform to "scan" the solar
system, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy without having
much of the solar system to worry about..
Care to guess where it is?

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61455
From: tff@zeno.ds.boeing.com (Terry F Figurelle)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article MJu@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
>
>I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere
>unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only
>about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe --
>and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
>-- 
>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

I remember a physic prof. who talked about scaling a cue ball to Earth size.
Its was significantly less spherical that the Earth!

---
Terry F Figurelle			Boeing Defense & Space Group
email: tff@plato.ds.boeing.com		PO BOX 3999, Mail Stop 6J-EA
phone: 206-394-3115 fax:206-394-4300	Seattle, WA 98124-2499

-- 
Terry F Figurelle			Boeing Defense & Space Group
email: tff@plato.ds.boeing.com		PO BOX 3999, Mail Stop 6J-EA
phone: 206-394-3115 fax:206-394-4300	Seattle, WA 98124-2499

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61456
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: U.S. Government and Technolgy Investment

People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to
have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and
technology.  Basically, the U.S. Government has gotten into the role of
supporting research which private industry finds too expensive or too
long-term.  

(Historically, this role for the U.S. Gov't was forced upon it because
of socialism in other countries.  In order for U.S.  industries to
compete with government-subsidized foreign competitors, the U.S. Gov't
has taken on the role of subisizing big-ticket or long-lead R&D.)

As a Republican, I abhor the necessity for our Government to involve
itself in technology this way.  I believe that market forces should
drive technology, and the world would be a better place for it.  But
the whole world would have to implement this concept simultaneously, or
some countries would have subsidized R&D, while others would not.  So
the U.S. must subsidize because everybody else does.  (This sounds a
lot like the farm subsidies arguments behind our GATT negotiations,
doesn't it?)

But this role of Government subsidies is antithetical to
cost-effectiveness.  The general idea is to spend money on new
technology, and thereby maintain and promote our technological culture,
despite the forces in the business world (like the dreaded quarterly
earnings report) which erode the ability of U.S. industry to invest in
new technology.  And since our goal is to spend money, it makes little
sense to try to save money.

Of course, we could always spend our money more wisely, but EVERYBODY
disagrees about that the wisdom should be.  

It's interesting to note that some of our best tools for cost control
available in industry today were derived from Government projects.
GANTT charts, CP/M, and most of the modern scheduling software comes
from DoD projects and their contractors.  The construction industry
has taken these tools to the core of their businesses; every large
construction project now uses these tools.  

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

     "A scientist can discover a new star, but he cannot make one.
      He would have to ask an engineer to do that."
        -- Gordon L. Glegg, American Engineer, 1969

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61457
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>to the array-flapping problems.


Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick release.

one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61458
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
>of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
>is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance...
>... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance...

Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is
possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there
is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced
by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of
the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator
where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest-
without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did
it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation,
and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61459
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
|> |
|> |	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
|> |Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
|> |the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
|> |weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
|>>bay.
|>>
|> 
|> a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,
|
|I do not understand what you are saying here.  What is improved, what 
|is Significant, and what does this have to do with carrying more 
|equipment on a servicing mission?  Also, as implied by other posters, why 
|do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway?  Maybe you have 
|something here, but could you please clarify it for us on the net? 
|

RIght now the HST sevicing mission is listed as 11 days.  before
it was listed as 9 days.  they just kicked up the number of spacewalks
to 5,  after simulations indicated  that it was not do-able in 4.  

After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.
I know when HST was first flown, it was placed in the Highest
possible Shuttle orbit. 

Now the shuttle can cary a thing called the EDO pallet, or extended
duration orbiter pallet.  It's mostly  LOX/LH for the fuel cells
and RCS gear,  plus more O2  and canisters for the life support
re-breathers.  maybe more nitrogen too.

THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
and Orbiter Duration.   

In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
for a given orbital change.  

From what i understand,  the mass margins on the HST missions are
tight enough they can't even carry extra Suits or MMU's.

Now if they used a small tug,  I would bet,  just a wild guess,
that the savings on amss margin  would allow carrying the
EDO pallet,  extra suits,  more consumables,  parts for the
flaky FGS sensor,  parts for the balky solar  electronics,

and still enough for a double magnum of champagne.

or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
and longer drag life.

|> and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
|> so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
|> array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out
|
|From what I've heard, the motors are fine - it is one of the two 
|sets of electronics that control the motors that needs a fix.  The 
|motors and electronics are separate pieces of hardware.  I expect 
|to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. 
|

a
Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
on HST ops.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61460
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <29APR199311425584@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
|In article <1rlrpv$5ta@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
|>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
|>just a little speculative thinking folks.
|>pat
|Well pat for once I agree with you and I like your first idea that you had.
>IT probably is the gamma ray signature of the warp transitions of interstellar
>spacecraft! :)


Dennis.

	WE agree a lot ,  it's just we don't both post when we agree
on something.  And when we disagree, it tends to be a lot more
noticeable.;-)

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61461
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Subject: HST Antenna OK?

I haven't seen any mention of this in a while, so here goes...

When the Hubble Telescope was first deployed, one of its high gain antennas
was not able to be moved across its full range of motion.  It was suspected
that it had been snagged on a cable or something.  Operational procedures
were modified to work around the problem, and later problems have overshadowed
the HGA problem.

Is there any plan to look at the affected HGA during the HST repair mission,
to determine the cause of its limited range of motion?  Is the affected HGA
still limited, or is it now capable of full range of motion?

--
Steve Derry
<s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61462
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rocket Types

In article <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au> u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer) writes:
>It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
>particles for propolsion.
>The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement...

I'd guess this was a garbled report of the NERVA effort to develop a
solid-core fission rocket (the most mundane type of nuclear rocket).
That was the only advanced-propulsion project that was done on a large
enough scale to be likely to attract news attention.  It *could* be any
number of things -- the description given is awfully vague -- but I'd
put a small bet on NERVA.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61463
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deployable Space Dock..

In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Why not build a inflatable space dock.

If you're doing large-scale satellite servicing, being able to do it in
a pressurized hangar makes considerable sense.  The question is whether
anyone is going to be doing large-scale satellite servicing in the near
future, to the point of justifying development of such a thing.

>...inflate the dock with a gas (is does not have to be oxygen, just neeeds to
>be non-flameble, non-damaging to the satellite and abel to maintain heat)...

You'd almost certainly use air.  Given that you have to pressurize with
*something*, safety considerations strongly suggest making it breathable
(even if the servicing crew is using oxygen masks for normal breathing,
to avoid needing a ventilation system, it's nice if the hangar atmosphere
is breathable in a pinch -- it makes mask functioning much less critical).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61464
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? ...

There would be some point to doing long-term monitoring of things like
particles and fields, not to mention atmospheric phenomena.  However,
there is no particular plan to establish any sort of monitoring network.
To be precise, there is no particular plan, period.  This is a large
part of the problem.  In this context, it's not surprising that unexciting
but useful missions like this get short shrift at budget time.  The closest
approach to any sort of long-term planetary monitoring mission is the
occasional chance to piggyback something like this on top of a flashier
mission like Galileo or Cassini.

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto...

It is most unlikely that there is much happening on Pluto that would be
worth monitoring, and it is a prohibitively difficult mission to fly
without new propulsion technology (something the planetary community
has firmly resisted being the guinea pigs for).  The combined need to
arrive at Pluto within a reasonable amount of time, and then kill nearly
all of the cruise velocity to settle into an orbit, is beyond what can
reasonably be done with current (that is, 1950s-vintage) propulsion.

>It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
>objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
>without having much of the solar system to worry about..

Most of this can be done just about as well from Earth.  The few things
that can't be, can be done better from a Voyager-like spacecraft that is
*not* constrained by the need to enter orbit around a planet.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61465
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
: THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
: and Orbiter Duration.   

: In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
: will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
: thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
: needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
: carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
: less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
: for a given orbital change.  

: From what i understand,  the mass margins on the HST missions are
: tight enough they can't even carry extra Suits or MMU's.

: pat

I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why
the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components
(WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of
tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This
should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the
highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower 
orbit.  

Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity.

--
Steve Derry
<s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61466
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>... Also, as implied by other posters, why 
>do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ...

You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in
low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was
deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason.
It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has
no propulsion system of its own.)  This is an excellent opportunity,
given that there may not be another visit for several years.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61467
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky



In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU>,
richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes: 
>    If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
> molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
> from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
> and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
> can range from 40K to 150K.

Interstellar grains are not at all close to blackbodies.  The "large"
grains have sizes of order 0.1 micron and absorb visible light with
fair efficiency.  However, at temperatures below 100 K, 90% of the
thermal emission will be beyond 22 microns, where radiating
efficiency is poor.  (A small antenna cannot easily radiate at long
wavelengths.)  Thus the grains must heat up more in order to radiate
the energy they have absorbed.

Moreover, the IRAS observations had a maximum wavelength of 100
microns.  Grains colder than 30 K will radiate primarily at longer
wavelengths, and IRAS would be relatively insensitive to them.  In
the extreme limit, grains as cold as 5 K will be almost undetectable
by any conceivable observation.

Worse still, IRAS color temperatures are heavily contaminated by a
population of "small" grains.  These grains have only perhaps 50
atoms, and when they are hit by a single photon they heat up to
temperatures of several hundred or 1000 K.  Of course they cool
quickly and then stay cold for a while, but _when they are radiating_
the characteristic temperature is several hundred K.  Even a small
population of these grains can dramatically raise the observed
"average" temperature.

A model for local infrared emission consistent with COBE data has
three components.  These represent scattered radiation from Zodiacal
dust (color temperature 5500 K), thermal emission from Zodiacal dust
(Tc = 280 K), and thermal emission from Galactic dust (Tc=25 K).  At
the ecliptic poles, the emissivities or dilution factors are
respectively 1.9E-13, 4E-8, and 2E-5.  The first two are roughly
doubled in the ecliptic plane.

To find the thermal equilibrium temperature, we add up the dilution
factor times the fourth power of temperature for all components, then
take the fourth root.  In the table below, starlight comes from
Allen's number that stellar emission from the whole sky is equivalent
to 460 zero mag stars with B-V color of 0.75.  No doubt careful work
could do much better.  (The person who suggested starlight had a
dilution factor of E-4 must have been remembering wrong.  We would be
cooked if that were the case.  In any event, the energy density of
starlight comes out about the same as that of the microwave
background, and I believe that to be correct.)

                         Dilution   Temp.   DT^4
Microwave background         1        2.7     53
Galactic dust              2E-5      25        8
Zodiacal dust (emission)   6E-8     280      369
Zodiacal dust (scattering) 3E-13   5500      275
Starlight                  1E-13   5500       92
                                           -----
                                             797

The fourth root of 797 is 5.3 K.  Outside the Solar system, the
result would be 3.5 K.  

I find these results surprising, especially the importance of
Zodiacal dust, but I don't see any serious mistakes.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact lpf@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61468
From: rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
>dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
>public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
>would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

It's public because it belongs to everybody.  It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light.  If they can sell you
or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.
Never mind that taxpaper's money is wasted.  Never mind that the sky is ruined.


Bob Bunge

Greed is Great - Gordon Grekko













Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61469
From: turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner)
Subject: moon image in weather sat image



an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.

pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
details on the moon are viewable.

the moon is not in the 1400UT images.


 george wm turner            turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu   

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61470
From: fennell@well.sf.ca.us (Michael Daniel Fennell)
Subject: SARSAT for tracking payload deployed by tether.



We are interested in constructing a reentry vehicle to be deployed from a
tether attached to an orbiting platform.  This will be a follow on to our
succesful deployment of a 20 kilometer tether on the March 29 flight of
SEDS (Small Expendable Deployment System), which released an instrumented
payload that reentered the earth's atmosphere and burned up over the west
coast of Mexico.  This time we want to make a payload that can be recovered.
We want to build it from "off the shelf" technology so as to do this as
quickly and inexpensively as possible.  We want to be able to track the
payload after it has deployed its parachute.  An idea we have is to put the
same kind of radio beacon on it that is used with SARSATs (Search and Rescue
Satellites).  It would turn on with the opening of the parachute and aid in
tracking.  These beacons are known in the marine industry as EPIRBs
(Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon).  They are rugged (they have to
be to survive a ship wreck!) and cheap.  We have several questions:

1.  What is the world authority regulating the use of SARSAT beacons.  Are
there multiple authorites, i.e. military and civilian?

2.  What are the regulations regarding the use of SARSAT signals.  Can they
be used for one of a kind situations with a long lead time of warning the
relevant authorities, or are they strictly reserved for life threatening
emergencies?

3.  What is the coverage of SARSATS?  Are they in LEO with only intermittant
coverage of a fixed position on the earth, or are they in geosynchronous
orbit?

4.  Is there an industry organization governing the use and manufacture of
these transponders?

Please post replies here or send E-mail to me at:
	fennell@well.sf.ca.us
Thanak you very much for any assistance you can provide.

			-mike fennell


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61471
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1rrhlo$ajb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: 
> 
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.  

Where did that idea come from?  It's news to me.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61472
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
>
>
>an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
>it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
>the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
>CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
>
>pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
>details on the moon are viewable.

Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
across the clouds.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61473
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>
>...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
>
>>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
>>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>>  - 7 berthing ports
>>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
>
>Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
>a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61474
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Abyss-breathing fluids

In <1993Apr29.192623.11760@cc.ic.ac.uk> atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi) writes:

>"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to 
>breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations 
>required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning 
>fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book.
>I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).

And most definitely read it in conjunction with Heinlein's _Starship
Trooper_.  The two books are radically different viewpoints of the
same basic premises.  I've even heard tell of English classes built
around this.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61475
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:

>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.

Right?  What right?  And don't you mean something more like: It so
typical that the wants of the minority can obstruct the wants of the
majority, no matter how ridiculous those minority wants might be or
what benefits those majority wants might have?

[My sole connection with the project is that I spent a lot of time in
classes at the University of Colorado.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61476
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:

>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.

And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
of the rest of us?

>Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
>for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
>it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
>floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same 
>reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.

And if you want to view that television station, you have to watch the
commercials.  You can't turn them off and still be viewing the
television station.  In other words, if you don't like what you see,
don't look.  There is no 'right' I can think of that you have to force
other people to conform to your idea of aesthetic behaviour.  What's
next, laws regulating how people must dress and look so as to appeal
to your fashion sense, since you have this 'right' of an aesthetic
view? 

> Pat writes:
>George.

>	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
>If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
>a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
>here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
>civil rights.

>I say: 
>	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
>	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
>	discrimination, and violence against others of different
>	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.

Which has what to do with the topic of discussion?

>Pat says:
>If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
>to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
>in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
>know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
>they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
>you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
>In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

>I say:
>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.

Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61477
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In <jgladu-290493130832@128.249.27.63> jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:

>In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
>> and of itself.

>I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
>are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
>its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
>existence of the space program relies upon that money.

I have to agree with Ward.  The problem with your approach is they add
up what you can reasonably claim as 'spin-offs', add up what's been
spent on space, and then come back with something like, "You spent $X
billion for that?  Wouldn't it be better just to spend the money on
direct research and forget all this space stuff?  We could have got
all that stuff a *lot* cheaper that way.  Space is wasteful and
inefficient."

Then they cancel your funding and spend it studying mating rituals of
New Guinea tribesmen or something.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61478
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

In <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Being wierd again, so be warned:

>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??
>It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
>objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
>without having much of the solar system to worry about..

Doing this in anything like reasonable time would require more
propulsion capability than we can manage.  You would have to boost to
Pluto and then slow back down.  You could do something like a Hohman
orbit, but I think that would take ridiculous amounts of time (my
Rubber Bible is at home).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61479
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: NASA contributions?

Teflon? A contribution from the space program? Since the French were using
Teflon on household items in the early 1950's, it is unlikely that it was
invented by NASA. As for pacemakers and calculators, again those are
anecdotally connected with NASA.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61480
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

games@max.u.washington.edu  writes:
Re; Response from CoB of Boeing on SSTO ...
>"As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have
>a better answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some
>of our customers about that.  As far as commercialization, that is
>a long ways off.  ...
> Anybody know anything further? Is this really news? Does this
>threaten further work on DC-? ?
  
   Boeing has been looking at several TSTO vehicles and has carried
out extensive conceptual studies of advanced launch systems for some
time.  A good reference on this might be: "Comparison of Propulsion
Options for Advanced Earth-To-Orbit (ETO) Applications (IAF-92-
0639)." by V.A. Weldon and L.E. Fink from Boeing.   The paper
describes a propane-fueled TSTO launch system claimed to achieve
aircraft-like operational efficiencies without the problems
associated with liquid hydrogen fuel.  Basically, it's a high-speed
airplane launching a Hermes-type spaceplane
   The design (the concept is also called "Beta") as laid out in the
paper can launch at least 10,000 pounds into polar orbit, or 20,000
pounds to space station orbit including a crew of eight persons and
life support.  System design reliability is .9995.
   Beta is a 360-foot-long first stage powered by two large ramjets
and 12 high- speed civil transport (HSCT) turbofans.  A 108-foot-
long reusable orbiter is trapeze-mounted in the belly of the first-
stage aircraft, which also could accommodate a longer and heavy
payload on an expendable second stage.
   To launch the orbital vehicle, the first stage takes off like a
normal HSCT and accelerates to Mach 3.  At that point the turbofans,
modified to burn catalyzed JP-7, would shut off and the ramjets,
would take over.  At Mach 5.5 the orbiter or the ELV would swing
out, ignite and proceed to orbit. Both vehicles would land like
aircraft at the conclusion of their respective missions.
   Estimated total weight of the combined configuration at takeoff
is about 1.5 M lbs, roughly equivalanet to a fully loaded An-225.
The orbiter stages weighs about 400,Klbs including 335 Klbs
of LOX and subcooled propane to power two 250 Klbs vacuum thrust
rocket engines. Propellants would be stored at 91 degrees Kelvin,
with the propane in a spherical tank mounted forward of the 15-by-
25-foot cargo bay and the two-seat orbiter crew station. LOX would
be stored aft.  Weldon and Fink claim the key to this design's
success is the structurally efficient airframe and the compact
tankage allowed by the high-density supercooled hydrocarbon fuel.
     The paper compares TSTO design to SSTO design.  They conclude
while a SSTO has a slightly lower recurring cost, a TSTO is easier,
cheaper, and less risky to develop, simpler to build, has greater
safety and mission versatility and doesn't carry the hard-to-handle
and bulky hydrogen fuel. The conlcude "In conjunction with its major
use of airplane type engines and fuel, as well as its inherent self-
ferry capability, it is probably the system most likely to provide
as close to airline-like operations as possible with a practical
configuration, until a single stage airbreather/rocket concept can
be shown to be operationally viable."
  
>Is this really news? Does this threaten further work on DC-?
   Weldon and others at Boeing have been working on TSTO designs for
some time.  I expect this, or a similar concept (perhaps the HTHL
SSTO they proposed for the SDIO SSTO first phase) is being re-
examined as a basis for a bid on the first phase of SpaceLifter.
   Does it threaten DC-???.  Possibly -- There is a set of on-going
studies trying straighten out the government's future space
transportation strategy.  MDC and Boeing (as well as other firms)
are providing data to a joint study team back in DC.  There are
various factions and options vying for attention -- including
shuttle upgrades, shuttle replacement (what was called the "4-2-3"
architecture), SpaceLifter, ELV upgrades, and various advanced
vehicles (ALES, Beta, DC-??, NASP, FSTS, SSTOs of several types,
etc.)  NASA/DOD/DOT are trying to put together a coherent strategy
for future US gov't space transportation systems, and trying to
juggle near-term launch needs (like for DoD and NASA) against
medium-term needs (including commercial considerations), and against
the investment and risk of going to "leap frog" new technologies
like SDIO/SSTO and NASP and Beta.
   It's a heck of a problem.  The worst part of the problem isn't
that there aren't promising ideas and concepts -- there are dozens
of them -- but how they balance cost and risk versus real needs in
the near term.  They should have a draft report in mid-June, with a
final report coming by the end of the fiscal year.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61481
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrhlo$ajb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>>In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> |> |
.. 
> 
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.

As Ben says - this re-boost idea is all news to us here.  Do you know 
something we don't?  Please supply a source - it would be nice for 
the schedulers of observations to know where the thing is going to 
be.  These altitude numbers are also way off.  

My best source has: 
"Minimum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    573 Kilometers"
"Maximum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    603 Kilometers"
"Delta   ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:      3 Kilometers" 

(PMDB is Proposal Management Data Base - used to schedule observations.) 
..

> In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
> will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
> thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
> needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
> carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
> less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
> for a given orbital change.  
> 

Could you supply some calculations?  You might check some recent 
postings that explained that 'a small booster' as suggested does 
not now exist, so comparing the mass of something that doesn't 
exist to the mass of the OMS fuel seems impossible.  The contamination 
threat also remains.  

.. 
> 
> or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
> The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
> and longer drag life.
> 
  Longer drag life I can understand, but could you explain the 
antenna pointing?  

> Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
> on HST ops.

Tell me about it.  Although the arrays can be (and are) moved perfectly 
well utilizing the second electronics box.  Getting them both working 
is much desireable so as to reclaim redundancy.  

> 
> pat
> 

I don't mean to jump on you - helpful suggestions are always welcome 
and we all know the more ideas the better, but I do want the true 
situation to be described clearly and correctly, lest some get 
confused. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61482
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrjsjINNop7@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes:
> Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
> : and Orbiter Duration.   
> 
.. 
> 
> I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why
> the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components
> (WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of
> tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This
> should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the
> highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower 
> orbit.  
> 
> Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity.
> 
> --
> Steve Derry
> <s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>


One thing to recall.  Putting a satellite as high as possible is one thing. 
Coming back to not only that altitude, but matching the position of it in 
its orbit on a subsequent mission is another thing.  Any misalignment of the 
plane of the orbit during launch or being ahead or behind the target will 
require more fuel to adjust.  This was considered in the original deployment. 

I agree though that the demands on the crew and complexity are stupendous.  
One has to admire how much they are trying to do. 

Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61483
From: wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown)
Subject: Re: Space spinn offs

I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the 
system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.

Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.

My 2 sense worth.

Bill


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61484
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <1993Apr30.173625.10139@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
> >
> >an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
> >it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
> >the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
> >CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
> >
> >pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
> >details on the moon are viewable.
> 
> Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
> Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
> across the clouds.

Speaking of which, a paper was out a few years ago about a
weather sat imaging a lunar eclipse -- are those images
uploaded anywhere?  I could dig out the reference if there's interest.

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61485
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Space spinn offs

In article <1rruis$9do@bigboote.WPI.EDU> wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown) writes:
>From: wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown)
>Subject: Re: Space spinn offs
>Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:27:24 GMT
>I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
>It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the 
>system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.
>
>Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
>enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
>the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
>all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.
>
>My 2 sense worth.
>
>Bill
>

The artifical pacemaker was invented in 1958 by Wilson Greatbatch an
American biomedical engineer. The bill authorizing NASA was signed
in October of 1958 so it is clear that NASA had nothing to do with
the invention of the pacemaker.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61486
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
>the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
>has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
>no extra MMU's.   

Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  

>WHy not do this?

>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.

>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.

Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  

Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less
than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain
and reschedule the EVA's in that time.

More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.


According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61487
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr30.170718.1218@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
> 
>>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
> 
> And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
> of the rest of us?
> 
 Let me get this right - sorry, try again.  Let me get this straight - 
well maybe that too is a poor choice of words - someone might think 
I'm pushing a gay agenda.  How about:  let me try to understand this 
by re-phrasing it as an extreme.  I, as a minority of one, have no right 
to a beautiful world.  You, on the other hand have the right to make an 
ugly one because you presume to speak for all the rest.  And I cannot 
complain.  Curious. 

.. 

>>I say:
>>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
> 
> Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
> you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.
> 

And do you want everyone to do as you wish (insist on putting something 
up that will impact everyone for selfish reasons) _without_ any legislation?  
And no one else can even object?  Somehow I think this whole shoving 
contest has gotten way off the track.  I'm ready to let this thread 
die a quick and merciful death. 

> -- 
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.


Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61488
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Single Launch Space Station

In article <C69qA6.J4w.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw)
wrote:
> 
> Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
> >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
> >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
> >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
> >and jettisoned after ET separation.
> 
> Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
> bring them down to use as spares?

Good question....I asked that myself....However, since this option is as
expensive as the Freedom derivative, the issue will likely be moot.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61489
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article 290493130832@128.249.27.63, jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:
>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> >1.	Calculators
>> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
>> 
>I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
>are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
>its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
>existence of the space program relies upon that money.
>
>just my $.02
>
>BTW: don't forget Velcro...

at least be honest.  velcro (tm) dates from the 40's.  i have doubts
about everything listed above.  just because it was developed in the
space age, doesn't mean it was a space spin-off.  

BTW:  don't forget Tang...:)
-DonG

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61490
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1993Apr27.092444.27199@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave
Michelson) wrote:
> 
> In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
> >dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
> >
> >...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
> >
> >>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
> >>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
> >>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
> >>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
> >>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
> >>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
> >>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
> >>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
> >>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
> >>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
> >>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
> >>  - 7 berthing ports
> >>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
> >>    (twice the volume of skylab).
> >>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
> >>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
> >
> >Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
> >a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
> >that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
> >a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
> >of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
> >complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
> >it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).
> 
> I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
> Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

This is actually more like the stuff from Phase A and MOL....Phase B ended
with a "Power Tower" approach....

It's also VERY expensive in terms of upfront development costs....so all
you get is a redistribution of costs from the shuttle flights to the
contractors who build it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61491
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:

>In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
>>dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
>>public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
>>would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

>It's public because it belongs to everybody. 

No, the sky does not, at this time, belong to anyone.  Ownership is necessary
to the definition because someone has to have the authority to decide if the
action was good or bad.  If neither you or I own a brick wall, then I can't
unilaterally declare that spraypainting my name on it is right, and you don't
have the authority to declare that it is wrong.  The owner may find it artistic
or she may be call the police.

(this applies to the argument on bright satellites more than street lights)

It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light. 

"maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out
of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care.

>If they can sell you
>or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
>of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.

It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware.
If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell.
Write a letter to city hall.

Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of 
this thread was space based light sources.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61492
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable...
>
>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays...

They can be detached in an emergency.  But expensive hardware is not thrown
away casually (bearing in mind that nobody knew the design was defective).
If the deployment crew had found some nasty flaw -- the lid failing to open,
for example -- it would have been a bit embarrassing to have to throw the
solar arrays away to get the thing back in the payload bay.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61493
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/30/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                       MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             April 30, 1993
                              11:30 AM PDT

DSS-65 (Madrid 34 meter antenna) did not acquire the expected Mars Observer
Spacecraft signal at the scheduled beginning of track yesterday morning (4/29)
at approximately 6:00 AM.  Indications were that the spacecraft had entered a
Fault Protection mode sometime between that time and receipt of normal
telemetry at the end of the previous station pass (DSS-15 - Goldstone 34
meter antenna) at approximately 8:00 PM the evening before.  Entry into
Contingency Mode was verified when signal was reacquired and telemetry
indicated that the spacecraft was sun coning.  After subsystem engineers
reported all systems performing nominally, fault protection telemetry modes
were reconfigured and memory readouts of command system Audit Queue and
AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) Starex performed.  These
readouts verified that Contingency Mode entry occurred shortly after 1:30 AM
yesterday, 4/29/93.  Preliminary indications are that a Sun Ephemeris Check
failure triggered fault protection.  However, the Flight Team will be
determining the precise cause over the next few days.

As of last evening, the spacecraft had been commanded back to Inertial
Reference and was stable in that mode.  The Flight Team is planning to
command the spacecraft back to Array Normal Spin state today.

Magnetometer Calibration activities had completed prior to Contingency
Mode entry.  MAG Calibration data has been recorded on Digital Tape
Recorders 2 and 3.  Playback of DTRs 2 and 3, scheduled to be completed
yesterday, was postponed when Contingency Mode entry halted Flight
Sequence C9 execution.  The Flight Team is developing a strategy to restart
C9 to complete data playback.  Present planning is to perform playbacks
between  as soon as Wednesday, or as late as Friday of next week (5/5-
5/7), dependent on Contingency Mode recovery activity.  DTR playback will
be performed via the High Gain Antenna at 42,667 bits per second.  Upon
verification of successful DTR playbacks, downlink will be maintained at
the 4K S & E rate.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61494
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable


In article <C6Az8z.pD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>>As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
>>of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
>>is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance...
>>... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance...
>
>Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is
>possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there
>is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced
>by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of
>the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator
>where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest-
>without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did
>it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation,
>and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.

Climbers regard 8000 metres and up as "The Death Zone".  Even on 100% Oxygen,
you are slowly dying.  At 8848m (Everest), most climbers spend only a short
period of time before descending.  I've been above 8000 once.  Descending as
little as 300m feels like walking into a jungle, the air is so thick.  Everest
in winter without oxygen, no support party (Alpine style).  That is the
"ultimate challenge" (or is it solo?)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61495
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission?

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes...
> 
>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

We've been progressing towards that goal for 30 years now.  We precede
any orbiting mission with flyby missions.  Of course, it gets harder to
do as we work our way farther away from Earth.  We're just starting to
work out to the outer planets: Galileo will orbit Jupiter, and Cassini around 
Saturn.  

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto.. 

Well first things first. We'll do a flyby mission first since it is
much easier and faster to do.  If the Fast Pluto Flyby mission is approved then
we'll launch a Pluto mission before the end of the decade.  A Pluto orbiter
however requires a larger spacecraft and a longer cruise period.   Orbit
insertion requires more fuel has to be carried along and restricts the
trajectory to a slower approach velocity to Pluto.
I'd imagine though that we would be doing a Neptune orbiting
mission before a Pluto orbiting mission, unless the Pluto flyby turns
up something really interesting.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61496
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>>to the array-flapping problems.


>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick
> release.  one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.

You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost,
and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.

For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that
there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks,
etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could
be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for
safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile
would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.)

Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to
orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61497
From: bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?


In article <C6Assy.Ao9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

>    Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few
> years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in
> Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The
> State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien
> invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens),
> the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was
> very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything
> intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a
> philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I
> believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral
> person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a
> person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.

This is a whole different situation.  If aliens were able to get here prior
to us being able to get there, one might conclude that they would be more advanced
and therefore "more intelegent" that we are.  However if we get somewhere where there
is life, chances are we wont be able to communicate with them.  So we will have
no clue as to weather they are "intelegent" or not.

>    I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The
> human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does
> underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The
> usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the
> culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.  My question however was
more along the lines of... Every year the US spends millions of tax dollars
and giving tax breaks to individuals and companies who feed the poor of foreign
countries while thousands of our own people sleep on the streets at night.
Would we give to the economicly dissadvantaged on another planet if we hadn't resolved
these issues on our own?


But... Your comment brings up another good question.  Over the years we have decided
that certain cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior
to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very little crime, no
homelessnes, no poverty.  Then the europeans came along and now they have those and
more.  If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in houses, farm
the land and go to church on sunday?
-- 
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61498
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.145450.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>.. 
>> 
>> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
>> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
>> they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>As Ben says - this re-boost idea is all news to us here.  Do you know 
>something we don't?  Please supply a source - it would be nice for 
>the schedulers of observations to know where the thing is going to 
>be.  These altitude numbers are also way off.  
>
>My best source has: 
>"Minimum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    573 Kilometers"
>"Maximum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    603 Kilometers"
>"Delta   ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:      3 Kilometers" 
>
>(PMDB is Proposal Management Data Base - used to schedule observations.) 
>..
>

I am sure your numbers are far better then mine.  As i said above,
i don't have exact numbers.

>> In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
>> will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
>> thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
>> needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
>> carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
>> less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
>> for a given orbital change.  
>> 
>
>Could you supply some calculations?  You might check some recent 
>postings that explained that 'a small booster' as suggested does 
>not now exist, so comparing the mass of something that doesn't 
>exist to the mass of the OMS fuel seems impossible.  The contamination 
>threat also remains.  
>

How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????

I know that no small manuevering tug exists,  but maybe  one could
soup up a Bus 1.   Does anyone out there have the de-clasified
specs on hte BUS 1?  would it be able to provide enough  control
force to balance the HST,  and  still have the rocket thrust
to hurl her into a decent high orbit?

>.. 
>> 
>> or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
>> The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
>> and longer drag life.
>> 
>  Longer drag life I can understand, but could you explain the 
>antenna pointing?  

Sorry,  that should be intrument pointing.

>
>> Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
>> on HST ops.
>
>Tell me about it.  Although the arrays can be (and are) moved perfectly 
>well utilizing the second electronics box.  Getting them both working 
>is much desireable so as to reclaim redundancy.  

Plus, if the second box gets fritzy, you could be in shitter ville
real fast.

>
>I don't mean to jump on you - helpful suggestions are always welcome 
>and we all know the more ideas the better, but I do want the true 
>situation to be described clearly and correctly, lest some get 
>confused. 
>
>Regards, 
>Wm. Hathaway 

The problem is no-one seems to have the exact numbers.  When the mission
was planned originally at 3 spacewalks,  and 3 astronauts,  there was
enormous concern over the mass margins for the flight.  THey
have now planned for 5 EVA's,  an 11 day mission and have 2 reserve
EVA's and an emergency EVA.  Obviously that is coming from somewhere.
My guess is the OMS burn  fuel,  or  re-boost  margin.   

I just figured, if GOldin wants to really,  prove out faster, cheaper
better,   have some of the whiz kids  slap together an expendable
space manuevering tug  out of a BUs1,  and use that for the re-boost.
it has to be better then using the Discovery as a tow truck.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61499
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Revival of San Marco? (was Re: Commercial Space News #22)

In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
[...]
>    This might point out some key discriminators in judging the 
> feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include:
>   - Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage 
> sufficient to recover setup costs?
>   - Is there a market advantage of using the site?
>   - Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site?
>   - Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the 
> investment?  
>    Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
> Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
> Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
> these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
> on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

This reminds me... my fuzzy brain recalls that somebody was thinking
of reviving the San Marco launch platform off the coast of Kenya,
where the Copernicus satellite was launched around 1972.  Is this
true, or am I imagining it?  Possibly it's connected with one of the
Italian programs to revive the Scout in a new version.

That old platform must be getting pretty rusty, and there ain't a lot
of infrastructure to go with it...

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June. 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | You bring your view-graphs, 
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and I'll bring my rocketship."  
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61500
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93120.24999999  .00044939  00000-0  12819-3 0   129
2 22640  28.4643 241.8868 0011265 284.7181 109.3644 15.91616537   580
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61501
From: bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

Picture our universe floating like a log
in a river.  As the log floats down the
river, it occasionally strikes rocks, the
bank, the bottom, other logs.  When this collission
occurs, kinetic energy is translated into heat, the
log degrades, gets scraped up, and other energy 
translaions occur.  The distribution of damage to
the log depends on the shape of the log.

However, to a very small virus in a mite on the head of a
termite in the center of the log, the shock waves from the
collissions would appear uniformly random in direction.

This is my theory for GRB.  They are evidence of our universe
interacting with other universes!  Why not!  Makes
just as much sense as the GRB coming from the Oort cloud!

The log theory of universes can't be ruled out!

Of course, I'm a layman in the physics world.  You 
physicists out there, Tell me about this !!!!


Bob Combs
Astronautical Engineer,  
Stanford Telecom
.
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61502
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

tstroup@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes in response to my original post:

>First you need to do the literature search.  There is a lot of information
>out there.  Maybe we should just pick a specific area of long term habitation.
>This could be useful, especially if we make it available on the net.  Then
>we can look at methods of analyzing the technologies.

>>Such a detailed literature search would be of interest to 
>>ourselves as space advocates
>>and clearly important to existing space programs.
>>In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
>>various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
>>This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
>>basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
>>and any other source!

>Unless there is an unbelievable outpouring of interest on this on the net,
>I think we should develop a detailed data base of the literature search 
>first.  Then if we accomplish that we can go on to real analysis.  The data
>base itself could be useful for future engineers.

>That's my response Ken, what do you think?

>Tim

Well, I agree.  I hope others chime in with suggestions on specific
technologies which could be applied towards the maintenance of an
Earth like atmosphere on a long-duration spacecraft.

Tim et al:
I think we should try looking at atmosphere first.
This seems to be the single most fundamental issue in keeping anyone alive.
We're all taught that when supporting a patient
you look for maintaining airway. So, in keeping with my trauma training
(and keeping my emergency medicine professor happy), I suggest that
we look at the issues surrounding a regenerable atmospheric circuit.

Howz that Tim?

Ken

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61503
From: billosh@netcom.com (William E. O'Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you 
will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon.

			    Bill O'Shaughnessy


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61504
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>|prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>|>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>|>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>|>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>|>|much energy in one second? 
>|>>                                                -jeremy
>|
>|>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.
>|
>|It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
>|in the interstellar medium.)
>|


>How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection?
>and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.

>pat

Sounds to me like you'd want a star for the ground plane.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61505
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU Pontificated: 
>I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
>For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
>dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
>wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
>that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.
>

One of the sci.space FAQ postings deal with this.  It's archived
somewhere.  Perhaps someone can post where it is (I don'
remember).  


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
|I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!	|
|                                   <Bart Simpson> 		| 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61506
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Revival of San Marco? (was Re: Commercial Space News #22)

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
>[...]
>>    Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
>> Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
>> Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
>> these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
>> on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

>This reminds me... my fuzzy brain recalls that somebody was thinking
>of reviving the San Marco launch platform off the coast of Kenya,
>where the Copernicus satellite was launched around 1972.  Is this
>true, or am I imagining it?  Possibly it's connected with one of the
>Italian programs to revive the Scout in a new version.

>That old platform must be getting pretty rusty, and there ain't a lot
>of infrastructure to go with it...

My information shows that the last San Marco launch was 1988.  There seem to 
have been a total of seven before that.  I seem to recall that someone, either
ASI or the University of Rome (?) includes money in their annual budget for
maintainance of the platforms (there are actually two).

The Italians have been spending money to develop an advanced Scout.  However,
recent events in the Italian space program, and the Italian government overall
make me skeptical that this will get off the ground in the near future.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61507
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?

In article <1993Apr30.164327.8663@hemlock.cray.com> bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski) writes:
>...Over the years we have decided that certain
>cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior
>to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very
>little crime, no homelessnes, no poverty...

This is, shall we say, an overly-broad statement.  In particular, are you
referring to the native American culture that existed in 1400, or the one
that existed in 1800?  (Simplify things by assuming we're talking about
the eastern US rather than the whole continent.)  Given that those were
*radically* different cultures, which one are you referring to?

>...If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in
>houses, farm the land and go to church on sunday?

Note that the pre-Columbian native Americans, east of the Mississippi,
did all of these things.  (Well, maybe not "on Sunday", but they did
have organized religions, not to mention cities and governments.)  If
you are judging the native Americans by the tribal culture that existed
in 1800, you might want to read an account of the De Soto expedition
to find out what pre-Columbian native American culture, at least in the
more civilized parts of the continent, was like.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61508
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Transistor/tube


>|Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
>|they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
>|than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
>>"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)

>Of course,  they then  turn up the REverb, the Gain,  add in the analog
>delay line  and the Fuzz box.  I'd think they wouldn't notice the
>distortion.   Oh I forgot the phase shifters.

It is kind of absurd, isn't it?  Some players even want more distortion,
especially the Hendrix fans :-)  But there are a lot of them out there
that can only afford the amp, or who like playing music without distortion.
Then there are your hard-core Hendirx fans that want particular *types*
of distortion, i.e., they make it, not their amps.

>>Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
>>mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.

>Ah,  but how do they compare to Mechanical systems :-)

I didn't see a thing about waste-heat from Babbage, and haven't seen one
of those mechanical TV's in a while, so it's anybodie's guess :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61509
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: big THANKS

I'd like to thank everyone and anyone who sent me information
to help me with my project.  



_______  ___   ___       ___      ___     ___  ___    ___   
|     |  |  |  |  |     /   \     |   \   |  | \  \  /   / 
--| |-   |  |  |  |    / /\  \    | |\ \  |  |  \  \/   /
  | |    |   --   |   /  --   \   | | \ \ |  |   \     /  
  | |    |   __   |  /  -----  \  | |  \ \|  |   /  /\ \  
  |_|    |__|  |__| /__/     \__\ |_|   \____|  /__/  \_\



I'll send my report to all who requested a copy!


  KEITH MALINOWSKI STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
  Stockton State College
  Pomona, NJ 08240


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61510
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

Dale sez;
>Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
>an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
>the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
>are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
>complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
>orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
>on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

I don't buy it.  If the things had no value at all, people wouldn't
spend money to make them. So their lack of value is just your
opinion, not an actual fact, which is neither a philisophical or
legal basis for prohibiting them.

On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning
laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a
fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.

I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would
be violation of private property.  "I bought this house, out in
the boondocks, specifically to enjoy my hobby, amateur astronomy.  Now
this billboard has made that investment worthless, so I want the
price of the property, in damages."  It wouldn't take too many
succesful cases like that to make bill-sats prohibitively expensive.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61511
From: teezee@netcom.com (TAMOOR A. ZAIDI)
Subject: Hall Generators from USSR

Hi Folks,

              Last year America bought two  "Hall Generators" which are
used as thrusters for space vehicles from former USSR,if I could recall
correctly these devices were sent to JPL,Pasadena labs for testing and
evaluation.
     
              I am just curious to know  how these devices work and what
what principle is involved .what became of them.There was also some
controversy that the Russian actually cheated,sold inferior devices and
not the one they use in there space vehicles.

Any info will be appreciated...
  ok   {                         Thank{ in advance...
Tamoor A Zaidi
Lockheed Commercial Aircraft Center
Norton AFB,San Bernardino

teezee@netcom.com
de244@cleveland.freenet.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61512
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Human Habitale Planets?

Habital planets are also dependent on what kind of plant life can be grown..
and such.. Length of growing season (that is if you want something more than
VAT food, argh, Id ratehr eat an MRE for  along period of time).

I know in Fairbanks (Furbanks to some) the winter can get to -60 or so F, but
in the summer can get to +90 and such.. I know of worse places..
       
Incans and Sherpa and other low pressure atmosphere and such are a limit in
human adaptability(someone mentioend that Incan woman must come to lower
elevations to have babies brought to term? true?) I remember a book by
Pourrnelle I think that delt with a planet was lower density air..

I wonder what the limit on the other end of atmospheres?

I am limiting to human needs and stresses and not alien possibilties..
Thou aliens might be more adapted to a totally alien to human environment, such
as the upper atmosphere of Jupiter or??

Almost makes bio-engineered life easy...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61513
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Combo Propulsion System!?

How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on
the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal
means..
Seems that everyone talks about using one system and one system only per
mission, why not have more than one propulsion system? Or did I miss
something.. ?? or did it die in committee?
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61514
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

Okay, the earth has a magnetic field (unless someone missed something?)

Okay if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
it??
Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the electrical
field?

After all the dragless satellite is (I might be wrong), a suspended between to
pilons, the the pilons compensate for drag.. I think I know what I want to say,
just not sure how to say it..

A dragless satellite sounds interestingly enough liek a generator.

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Sorry for spelling, have not brought windows 3.1 online with my modem and comm
program. YET!! almos tthere..


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61515
From: jayb@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (Jay Brinkmeyer)
Subject: Re: Rocket Types

in article <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au>, u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer) says:
> Message-ID: <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au>
...
> If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?
> 
> Thanx. 8-)
> 
> Glen Balmer...
> 
I believe that my former employer Hughes Aircraft Company has a working Ion 
Propulsion system for satellites.

Jay Brinkmeyer

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61516
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

Getting wierd again?

Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large and to
expensive..

Okay what about launching one probe with multiple parts.. Kind of liek the old
MIRV principle of old Cold War Days. 
Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for the
probes.

Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal
propulsion, but also a solar sail (main reason for solar sail race is to see
what can be done and autmoated?) the sail would get the probes to were they
needed.. I know the asteroid/meteor clouds (and such) might get in the way of a 
Sail??

Main reasonf ro mother ship idea is to make it more economoical to send
multiple probes/mission/satellites/exploreres to different places and cut
costs..
The probes could do fly bys or ?? we shall see...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61517
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
>be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????

The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle
means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again 
if it should stick.



>I just figured, if GOldin wants to really,  prove out faster, cheaper
>better,   have some of the whiz kids  slap together an expendable
>space manuevering tug  out of a BUs1,  and use that for the re-boost.

It's clear that the "whiz kids" are not running the show. In any
case it's not prudent to stick a "slapped together" explosive device
on the end of a billion dollar asset that you'd like to see again.
(Wiseacres might say that a shuttle is a slapped-together explosive
device, but at least it's had some testing.)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61518
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Getting wierd again?

Or perhaps even weird?

>Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large and to
>expensive..

Hmmm, you might want to read this group more carefully; there's been a good 
amount of discussion of the proposed Pluto Fast Flyby (PFF) mission that is 
specifically designed to be small and cheap.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61519
From: rousself@cicb.fr ( Frank ROUSSEL )
Subject: *** FTP images ASTRO server ***


I commend everybody to look at the FTP site 'ftp.cicb.fr'
-> Ethernet address 129.20.128.2 <-
in the directory /pub/Images/ASTRO:
there are lots of images (all of kinds in astronomy subject)
especially in GIF format and a NEW ! directory of some JPL animations

For your comfort, README files in all subdirectories give size and
description of each image, and a 7 days' newer images' list is in READMENEW

Note: you can connect it as 'anonymous' or 'ftp' user, then the quota
      for each is 8 users connected in the same time.
      So, if the server responds you "connection refused", be patient !

2nd note: this site is reachable by Gopher at 'roland.cicb.fr'
          -> Ethernet address 129.20.128.27 <-
          in 'Divers serveurs Ftp/Le serveur ftp du CRI-CICB/Images/ASTRO'

If you have any comments, suggestions, problems,
then you can contact me at E-mail 'rousself@univ-rennes1.fr'

Hope you enjoy it !


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61520
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In <1993Apr30.163959.19715@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

>cooked if that were the case.  In any event, the energy density of
>starlight comes out about the same as that of the microwave
>background, and I believe that to be correct.)


Yeah, what about that? Is this just a weird coincidence? (And
let's not see all the same hands this time, TVF.)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61521
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

[Description of Boeing study of two-staged spaceplane using
supersonic ramjets deleted.]

In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
to fool around with exotic airplanes.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61522
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

You should have been following the discussion of GRBs
going on in sci.astro. It's been discussed in some detail,
with references even.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61523
From: <RFM@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <billoshC6Bqyy.H6H@netcom.com>, billosh@netcom.com (William E.
O'Shaughnessy) says:
>
>If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you
>will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
>One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon.
>
>                            Bill O'Shaughnessy
>
What are those other objects?  UFOs????

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61524
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
>reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
>to fool around with exotic airplanes.

This presupposes that no supersonic ramjet aircraft/spacecraft can be reliable
or low-cost.  This is unproven.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61525
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Single Launch Space Station

: Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
: >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
: >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
: >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
: >and jettisoned after ET separation.

Karl Dishaw (0004244402@mcimail.com) replied:
: Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
: bring them down to use as spares?

One performance reason comes to mind: if you jettison the SSME's, you
don't have to drag them with you when you perform your circularization
burn(s).  On-orbit, SSME's are just dead weight, since we don't have an
SSME H2/O2 pressurization mechanism which works in zero-G.  This means
that you can't use them for re-boost or anything else.  Dead weight has
a couple of advantages, but more disadvantages.

Throw-away SSME's might let us use some of the old SSME's which are not-
quite-man-ratable.  But I doubt we'd do that; the cost of a launch
failure is too high.

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

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as 
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61526
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Kaliningrad (Was: Tsniimach Enterprise)

F.Baube[tm] writes:
>> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military
>>establishment, ...  They are located near the NPO Energia
>>facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow.
> 
>If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow, it is
>in fact the ex-East Prussian Konigsberg, now a Russian enclave on
>the Baltic coast.  It is served by ships and rail, and the intrepid
>traveller in Europe would find it accessible and might even want to
>try to arrange a tour (??).
  
   Hmm... there must be two towns with the same name.  Kaliningrad,
located just North of Moscow is correct.  It is the home of several
Russian space enterprises, including NPO Energia, Krunichev, Fakel,
and Tsniimach.  The main Russian manned spacecraft control facility
is also located here.
   Kaliningrad is easily reachable by auto from Moscow, and tours
can be arranged.  Call ahead though, there are still armed military
guards at many of these facilities -- who don't speak English,
aren't well paid, and are rather bored.
   It's a very popular destination with Western space industry
types at the moment.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61527
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?

: In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes...
: > I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
: >there a constant sensation of falling? 

Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) replied:
: Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first,
: but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that
: of sky diving.

I'm no astronaut, but I've flown in the KC-135 several times.  I'll
tell you about my first flight.

At the on-set of weightlessness, my shoulders lifted and my spine
straightened.  I felt a momentary panic, and my hands tried to grab
onto something (like the strap keeping me firmly against the floor)
to prevent me from falling; I remember conciously over-ruling my
involuntary motions.  My ears felt (not heard) a rush and I could
feel fluid moving in my head (like when you get up from bed while
you have a cold).

At that point, I ceased to concentrate on my physiological response,
since I had some science to do.  I was busy keeping my experiment
going and keeping track of all the parts during the "return" of
gravity and subsequent 1.8-G pull-out, so I didn't really pay
attention to physiology at that time.

After about 5 parabolas, I discovered that I was performing one
of the tricks I've discovered to keep myself from getting motion
sickness; I was keeping my head very still and moving very slowly
-- all except my hands and arms, which needed to be in rapid,
concious motion for my experiment.  During the pull-out to
parabola 5, my queasiness finally started to get to me, and I
had to use one of those air-sickness bags.  I was basically
useless for the rest of that flight, so I went to the seats in
the back of the plane while my partner (whom I drafted for just
this purpose) kept working on the experiment while I was ill.
(He was a vetran Vomit Comet rider, one of those anomalous
people who don't get sick on the thing.)

I didn't think of it as a "constant sensation of falling" so
much as like swimming in air.  It's very close to the sensations
I feel when I'm scuba diving and I turn my head down and fins up.

Jerry:
: >And what is the motion sickness
: >that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

Ron:
: It is the body's reaction to a strange environment.  It appears to be
: induced partly to physical discomfort and part to mental distress.
: Some people are more prone to it than others, like some people are more
: prone to get sick on a roller coaster ride than others.  The mental
: part is usually induced by a lack of clear indication of which way is
: up or down, ie: the Shuttle is normally oriented with its cargo bay
: pointed towards Earth, so the Earth (or ground) is "above" the head of
: the astronauts.  About 50% of the astronauts experience some form of
: motion sickness, and NASA has done numerous tests in space to try to
: see how to keep the number of occurances down.

I'm a volunteer in JSC's Space Biomedical Laboratory where they do,
among other things, some of the tests Ron mentions.  I was in one
called the Pre-flight Adaptation Trainer, which consisted of a chair on
a several-degree-of-freedom motion base with moving geometric visual
aids.  The goal was to measure the victim's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subject's
responses and subjective physiological descriptions and see if repeated
exposure to this environment could reduce future motion sickness
symptoms.

Jerry --

I don't know of any former or active-duty astronauts who personally
read this group.  I know that Bruce McCandless's office had been
waiting anxiously for the Space Station Redesign option I posted
last week, but I don't think Bruce reads the group himself.

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

     "The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make
      anything."
        -- Edward John Phelps, American Diplomat/Lawyer (1825-1895)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61528
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Deployable Space Dock..

: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
: >Why not build a inflatable space dock.

Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) wrote:
: If you're doing large-scale satellite servicing, being able to do it in
: a pressurized hangar makes considerable sense.  The question is whether
: anyone is going to be doing large-scale satellite servicing in the near
: future, to the point of justifying development of such a thing.

That's a mighty fine idea.  But since you asked "Why not," I'll
respond.

Putting aside the application of such a space dock, there are other
factors to consider than just pressurized volume.  Temperature control
is difficult in space, and your inflatable hangar will have to 
incorporate thermal insulation (maybe a double-walled inflatable).
Micrometeoroid protection and radiation protection are also required.
Don't think this will be a clear plastic bubble; it's more likely
to look like a big white ball made out of the same kind of multi-layer
fabric that soft-torso space suits are made out of today.

Because almost all manned space vessels (Skylab, Mir, Salyut) used
their pressurization for increased structural rigidity, even though
they had (have) metal skins, they still kind of qualify as inflatable.

The inflation process would have to be carefully controlled.  The
space environment reduces ductility in exposed materials (due to
temperature extremes, monotomic Oxygen impingement, and radiation
effects on materials), so your "fabric" may not retain any flexibility
for long.  (This may not matter.)  Even after inflation, pressure
changes in the hangar may cause flexing in the fabric, which could
lead to holes and tears as ductility decreases.

These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal
for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of
success.

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

     "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll
      work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61529
From: dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Teflon (Re: Long term Human Missions

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>>
>>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>>
>>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>
>Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
>bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
>needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
>gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
>inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.

I think you're both right.  Teflon was actually discovered by accident
before WWII.  From what I've heard, they had some chemical (I assume it
was tetrafluoroethylene) in a tank and but the valve got gummed up.
Cutting it open revealed that it had polymerized.

The material was useful for seals, but it had a major problem for, say
the linings of vessels: it wouldn't stick to metal.  What the space
program did was to find a way to get it to stick.  Thus we had no-stick
frypans on the market in the late '60s.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61530
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: LLNL Inflated space stations (was Deployable Space Dock..)

kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>: >Why not build a inflatable space dock.

[discussion of pros and cons deleted]

>These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal
>for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of
>success.

Could someone give me the references to the LLNL proposal?  I've been meaning
to track it down in conjuntion with something I'm working on.  It's not 
directly related to space stations, but I think many of the principles will 
carry over.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61531
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6BDGM.90r@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
|>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
|>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
|>>retractable as well as extendable...
|>
|>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
|>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays...
|
|They can be detached in an emergency.  But expensive hardware is not thrown
|away casually (bearing in mind that nobody knew the design was defective).
|If the deployment crew had found some nasty flaw -- the lid failing to open,
|for example -- it would have been a bit embarrassing to have to throw the
|solar arrays away to get the thing back in the payload bay.


I guess it's  kind of an aesthetics argument.

I can see the solar arrays being expensive,  and  there could be
contingencies where you would be throwing away brand new
solar cells,   but  it seems so cheap compared toa shuttle
mission, i wouldn't think they would bother.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61532
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Political banner in space


Well,  you better not get the shuttle as your launch vehicle.

and most ELV's have too  far of a backlog for political messages.

If during the campaign season,  the candidates for president had
launched one,  right around now we'd  be getting a launch
for PEROT 92.

and if they had used the shuttle,  we'd be seeing launches
for NIXON now more then ever.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61533
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Teflon (Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1rtghr$j9v@techbook.techbook.com> dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
|The material was useful for seals, but it had a major problem for, say
|the linings of vessels: it wouldn't stick to metal.  What the space
|program did was to find a way to get it to stick.  Thus we had no-stick
|frypans on the market in the late '60s.


Ejon Matejevic who was a full professor at Clarkson University, last
I heard,  developed the process for sticking Teflon to metals.

I don't think it was a NASA project, cuz i heard he held the patent
on it, and had made quite a bundle off it.

Anyone from Clarkson know the Exact story.  I never wanted to ask
him myself.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61534
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <C6BBow.IH9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
|
|>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
|>the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
|>has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
|>no extra MMU's.   
|
|Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
|mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  
|

Someone from NASA posted that there were very significant mass margins
on the HST re-boost mission.  A while back i had asked why not carry
the EDO pallet up,  and the answer was the mass margins were tight enough, they weren't even carrying extra suits.

|>WHy not do this?
|
|>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
|
|>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
|>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
|
|Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  
|
|Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less
|than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain
|and reschedule the EVA's in that time.
|

Where's wingo when you need him:-)

COme on.   Knock that S**T off.

YOu forget,  that during skylab,  they did  overnight mission planning
for the repair EVA's.   Also during the   
Intelsat Mission,   they did overnight  WETF simulations.
I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.

And as for building hardware,  anything can  be built if you want it
bad enough.

YOu forget,  the  BUS 1  is already built.  all they'd ahve to do
is soup it up, even test it  on a delta mission.

Don't get into this mode of  negativism.   besides,  at the rate
missions slip,   the Discovery won't launch on this mission until
March.  that's almost a year.

|More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
|was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
|extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.
|

Ah,  but how much more expensive is the Second HST servicing mission.

YOu forget,  there is a bum FGS,  the Solar array electronics, are
getting hinky  and there is still 8 months until the servicing mission.

The time for the space walks are growing rapidly.  THis was orignally
planned out as 3 spacewalks,  now they are at 5 EVA's  with 3 reserve
walks.

If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
saved.  If the Weight savings,  means they  can sit on orbit  for 30 Days.
and  handle any contingency  problems,  that's quite a savings.

|
|According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
|only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
|AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
|there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.


Of course,  there wasn't any need for the Saturn  V  after apollo too.

as for the problems with the aperture door,  I am sure they can
work out some way to handle  that.  Maybe a Plug  made from
Frozen ice.?   it'll keep out any contamination,
yet sublime away  after teh boost.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61535
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Combo Propulsion System!?

In article <1993May1.043916.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on
>the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal
>means..

If you've got a good propulsion system that's not useful for deceleration,
sure you can use chemical rockets for that part... but even just doing the
deceleration chemically is a major headache.  We're talking seriously high
cruising velocities; taking the velocity down nearly to zero for a Pluto
orbit isn't easy with chemical fuels.

Incidentally, solar sails are not going to be suitable as the acceleration
system for something like this.  They don't go anywhere quickly.  (I speak
as head of mission planning for the Canadian Solar Sail Project, although
that is more or less an honorary title right now because CSSP is dormant.)
They can't fly a mission like this unless you start talking about very
advanced systems that drop in very close to the Sun first.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61536
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <1993May1.044441.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay, the earth has a magnetic field ...
>...if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

Well, it's not that simple -- you're in Earth's magnetic field, and you
don't generate electricity -- but it can be done.

>Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
>vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
>it??

The way you power things is with electricity, so the answer to the first
question is definitely yes.  (If you meant to say "propel" rather than
"power", the answer is "sort of".)  Yes, you can use interaction with the
Earth's magnetic field to get electrical power, and there are potential
applications for this.

However, bear in mind that there is no free lunch.  The energy isn't
coming from nowhere.  What such systems do is convert some of the energy
of your orbital velocity into electrical energy.  There are cases where
this is a useful tradeoff.  Using power obtained in this way for propulsion
is useful only in special situations, however.

What you *can* do is get your power by some other means, e.g. solar arrays,
and run the interaction with the magnetic field in reverse, pumping energy
*into* the orbit rather than taking energy out of it.

If you want more information, trying looking up "electrodynamic propulsion",
"tether applications", and "magsails".

>Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the
>electrical field?

No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
there was no drag.  This is why there are quotes around "dragless".
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61537
From: claypool@wam.umd.edu (Mr. Krinkle)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <1993Apr30.173625.10139@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
>>
>>
>>an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
>Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
             Cool!
>Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
>across the clouds.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	I think you mean Moon.
		(Sorry, I had to.)  ; )




Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61538
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky

In article <C6BIr5.InC.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
|On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning
|laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a
|fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.

And I lived out there too.  It was a nice sleepy farm valley until
the Butler family decided to stick up all sorts of really tacky
High RIse office buildings and ruin my view of the sky.

I guess i should have sued somebody :-;

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61539
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>... design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
>different missions,namely different planets...

Not useful unless you've got some truly wonderful propulsion system for
the mother ship that can't be applied to the probes.  Otherwise it's
better to simply launch the probes independently.  The outer planets
are scattered widely across a two-dimensional solar system, and going
to one is seldom helpful in going to the next one.  Uranus is *not* on
the way to Neptune.  Don't judge interplanetary trajectories in general
by what the Voyagers did:  they exploited a lineup that occurs only
every couple of centuries, and even so Voyager 2 took a rather indirect
route to Neptune.

>Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal
>propulsion, but also a solar sail ...

Solar sails are pretty useless in the outer solar system.  They're also
very slow, unless you assume quite advanced versions.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61540
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes...
>In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>>to the array-flapping problems.
> 
> 
>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick release.
> 
I didn't think the bi-stem design was used so much for the retrieval as
for the ability to launch in a tight (size) STS envelope.  This is my own 
guess, based on similar designs flown on other large STS-launched s/c 
(GRO, UARS).  Also, there _might_ be some consideration given to mass 
requirements (bi-stems weight less than conventional S/A).  Finally, 
the HST arrays _do_ have the ability to be detached--remember, they're 
going to be replaced with new arrays.

However, as an ACS guy who's seen his branch management pull their
collective hair out over HST, I would voice a hearty 'yea' to using
conventional arrays over bi-stems, whenever possible.  No half hertz
flexible modes, no thermal snap, no problem.

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61541
From: howard@sharps.astro.wisc.edu (Greg Howard)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
>> distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
>> megaparsec^2 is OK.
>> 
>different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the
>galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a
>R=8800Mpc.  
>        For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty
>energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>much energy in one second? 
>                                                -jeremy
>
>

Supernovae put out 10^53 or 10^54 (i forget which, but it's only an
order of magnitude...).  Not in gamma rays, though.  You'd hafta get
all of that into gammas if they were at 9 Mpc, but if a decent fraction
of the SN output was in gammas it could reasonably be extragalactic 
(but closer than 9 Mpc).  I dunno SN theory so well, but I can't think
of how to get many gammas out.  Maybe I should look it up.

Big radio galaxies can put out 10^46 erg/s *continually*.  That's just
in the radio... there are a lot of gammas around them, too, but "bursts"?
Nah.

Neither of these should be taken as explanations... just trying to show
that those energies *are* produced by things we know about.


greg





Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61542
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <C6DtD0.HHI@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>by what the Voyagers did:  they exploited a lineup that occurs only
>every couple of centuries, and even so Voyager 2 took a rather indirect
>route to Neptune.

Indirect compared to what?  Did Voyager 2 traverse a substantially greater
distance than, say, a Hohmann orbit?  I've never heard Voyager's path
described as "indirect" before...  

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61543
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <1993May1.044441.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay, the earth has a magnetic field (unless someone missed something?)
>
>Okay if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

No, if you put a conductor in a changing magnetic field, it produces a voltage.
The two ways you can do that with a permanent magnet is to move the magnet or
move the conductor.  The slow shifting of the Earth's magnetic field isn't
really significant, especially when you consider how weak the Earth's magnetic
field is to begin with.

>Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
>vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
>it??

Well, it would require generating an incredibly large magnetic field to repel
the Earth's magnetic field (as a magnet can repel another magnet).  Of course,
this force only works in one direction, and the magnetic field generated has
to be unimaginably powerful.  Magnetic repulsion drops off as 1/r^3, and the
earth's magnetic field on the surface is already very weak.  It would require
some sort of unknown superconductor, and special nonmagnetic construction.
And seriously hardenned electronics (optical computers, perhaps).  And the
physiological danger would be significant (due to the iron content in our
blood, among other things).  In other words, forget it.

>Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the electrical
>field?
>
>After all the dragless satellite is (I might be wrong), a suspended between to
>pilons, the the pilons compensate for drag.. I think I know what I want to say,
>just not sure how to say it..
>
>A dragless satellite sounds interestingly enough liek a generator.

I missed out on the "dragless satellite" thread, but it sounds totally bogus,
from this little bit.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61544
Subject: Re:  Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)

In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>
>In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>
>> >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>>
>> >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>> >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
>>
>> >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
>>
>. . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
>'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
>part of the Oort cloud.

I don't know what you mean by 'edged', but surely there are two other
possibilities for an isotropic distribution: near interstellar (up to
~100 pc, i.e. within the disc), or the Galaxy's corona?

>Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
>of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
>isn't a mechanism for the others either.

--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ............ alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"Among the gods, there is a dispute as to which one of them originally
thought of Christianity; or, as they call it, the Great Leg Pull.  Apollo
has the best claim, but a sizeable minority support Pluto, ex-God of the
Dead, on the grounds that he has a really sick sense of humour." (Tom Holt)


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61545
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>I wrote:
>>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,  
>|
>|Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
>|mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  

>Someone from NASA posted that there were very significant mass margins
>on the HST re-boost mission.  A while back i had asked why not carry
>the EDO pallet up,  and the answer was the mass margins were tight enough,
they weren't even carrying extra suits.

So how much mass is saved by not burning the OMS?  That's the critical question.
My data shows that the OMS engines hold 10,900 kg of propellant.  Of that, a 
substantial fraction is going to be used for the first OMS burn, the reentry
burn and the reserve.  So Pat, tell us how much fuel the altitude change is
going to take, and how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1 and extra parts are going
mass.  If you can make the numbers work out, _then_ I'll be interested.  After
you show us that it can be done, then tell us how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1
and extra equipment is going to cost.  

>|>WHy not do this?
>|
>|>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
>|
>|>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
>|>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
>|
>|Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  

>Where's wingo when you need him:-)
>COme on.   Knock that S**T off.

>YOu forget,  that during skylab,  they did  overnight mission planning
>for the repair EVA's.   Also during thexD   
>Intelsat Mission,   they did overnight  WETF simulations.
>I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.

First, while astronauts certainly have done EVAs with minimal planning, that was
because they _had_ to.  They don't like to do that as a general rule.

Second, remember why they had to improvise during Intelsat 6?  They were trying
to attach a motor to a piece of hardware that wasn't designed to do that.  
Trying to shortcut the training is only going to make a repeat more likely.

Third, they don't have eight months.  They have however much time is left 
after someone comes up with a plan, shows it can work and gets it approved.
You may think I have a pessimistic attitude.  I think it's realistic.  I'm not
saying that the engineering task is impossible (few engineering tasks are).  
What I'm saying is that this is neither cost effective nor feasible under NASA
management.

>And as for building hardware,  anything can  be built if you want it
>bad enough.

>YOu forget,  the  BUS 1  is already built.  all they'd ahve to do
>is soup it up, even test it  on a delta mission.

"All they have to do is soup it up?"  Just what does that mean?  

>Don't get into this mode of  negativism.   besides,  at the rate
>missions slip,   the Discovery won't launch on this mission until
>March.  that's almost a year.

>|More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
>|was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
>|extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.

>Ah,  but how much more expensive is the Second HST servicing mission.

The second servicing mission is a contingency.  You have neither shown that it
would be necessary without your plan nor that it would be unnecessary with your
plan.  

>YOu forget,  there is a bum FGS,  the Solar array electronics, are
>getting hinky  and there is still 8 months until the servicing mission.

No, Pat, I haven't forgotten.

>If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
>saved.

No Pat.  That's $500 million minus the cost of the new hardware, minus the cost
of the extra struff you want to bring along, minus development and mangement 
costs, minus extra operating costs.  TANSTAAFL.

>|According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
>|only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
>|AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
>|there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.

>Of course,  there wasn't any need for the Saturn  V  after apollo too.

I'm sure that if you reread this you'll see that your argument is falacious.

>as for the problems with the aperture door,  I am sure they can
>work out some way to handle  that.  Maybe a Plug  made from
>Frozen ice.?   it'll keep out any contamination,
>yet sublime away  after teh boost.

Pat, not only is this messy and less reliable than a device that's _made_ to 
perform this task, it also ignores the point.  There is a desire to have 
astronauts available so that if the door fails to open, something can be done
about it.  Unless you can provide a very reliable way of reopening the door,
you haven't solved the problem.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61546
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

> Getting wierd again?
> 
> Okay what about launching one probe with multiple parts.. Kind of liek the old
> MIRV principle of old Cold War Days. 
> Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
> different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
> the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
> for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for the
> probes.

I can't see the need for a single (big? expensive? heavy?) "mothership" except
for Voyager style flyby missions. A few years ago, I did some calculations on a
"Grand Tour" space probe launched by a Saturn V in 1975-76. At the time,I felt 
that
the idea of a big "mother ship" had some merit - the Voyagers had to be rather
small, lightweight craft due to the limitations imposed by using weak Titan
III/Centaur launchers. The concept I examined (and Michael's?) had a lot in
common with the British Interplanetary Society's Daedalus project for sending a
probe to Barnard's Star - i.e. a large "bus" spacecraft carrying several
smaller probes to be dispatched when the ship arrives at its destination.
The Saturn V supposedly would have been able to launch a 10-ton payload towards
Jupiter and beyond. The "bus" could have included far more powerful
cameras/telescopes/scientific equipment and a heavier/more powerful power
source than the Voyagers as there would be no limitations on weight anymore.
Extremely important as the Voyagers had to perform most of their measurements
within a couple of weeks before and after planetary encounter, and usually at a
relatively great distance.
---
The smaller probes carried aboard might have been based on the "real" Voyagers,
and an even smaller version like the one scheduled for launch towards Pluto in
the early 21st century, and would have been released at various points during
the mission. The advantages are obvious: the bus would have carried out the
same basic Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune mission than Voyager 2 did, but in
addition two "sub-probes" could have been relased at Saturn, examining
that planet's south polar regions before moving on to Pluto. This would have
enabled NASA to map both hemispheres of Pluto/Charon by 1986...and several
other probes could have examined parts of the Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune
systems that weren't examined in great detail by the Voyagers due to
trajectory-related factors. A small "swarm" of camera-equipped miniature space
probes released a month before encounter would have been too costly for a 
small Voyager-type mission but entirely feasible if launched from a heavy, 
well-equipped spacecraft. And would we have learned a lot more about the outer
planets! The reason why the Grand Tour was cancelled was lack of money, of
course. 

MARCU$
   
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61547
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

<C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

><JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>
>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.

Some more references:

S.H. Dole

"Habitable Planets for Man"
Blaisdell Publishing Company, New York (1964)

I don't know if this can be found any more.

M.J. Fogg

"Extra-Solar Planetary Systems: A Microcomputer Simulation"
J. Brit. Interplanetary. Soc., _38_, 501-514, (1985)

"An Estimate of the Prevalence of Biocompatible and Habitable Planets"
J. Brit. Interplanetary. Soc., _45_, 3-12, (1992)

The first paper includes a detailed discussion of the physical conditions
for habitability.

-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61548
From: gkm@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore)
Subject: Fax/email wanted for Louis Friedman/Planetary Society

If available please send to
Glen Moore
Director
Science Centre
Wollongong, Australia
fax: 61 42 213151   email: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61549
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Human Habitale Planets?

In article <1993May1.042810.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Habital planets are also dependent on what kind of plant life can be grown..
>and such.. Length of growing season (that is if you want something more than
>VAT food, argh, Id ratehr eat an MRE for  along period of time).

Using greenhouses to extend the growing season shouldn't be a problem.
I'm supprised they don't do so in Alaska (cheaper to import, perhaps?)

>Incans and Sherpa and other low pressure atmosphere and such are a limit in
>human adaptability(someone mentioend that Incan woman must come to lower
>elevations to have babies brought to term? true?)

No, the Incas had no problems with this, but the Spanish did.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61550
From: wohlmuth@cehpx10 (Walter Wohlmuth)
Subject: large accelerations revisited


Why can't an aircraft be designed so that the pilot can always be 
maintained in a upright position, perpendicular to the plane of
acceleration?  With the visual helmets now being used that display
some of the flight parameters and with a keyboard and manuvering
equipment moving with the pilot, a pilot may be able to function at
accelerations in excess of 12G.  Is anyone currently pursuing this
area or is there a reason why this is impossible at the present time?

--
Walter A. Wohlmuth		walter@capone.ccsm.uiuc.edu
U. of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61551
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In a recent article nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large 
>and to expensive..

I'd hardly call the current Pluto Fast Flyby proposal "too large" (if the
new technology insertion currently taking place succeeds, the S/C mass will
drop to 110-120 kg) or "too expensive" ($400 million [FY92 $] for two S/C),
especially when compared to other NASA planetary missions.

>Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
>different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
>the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
>for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for 
>the probes.

This proposal would work only if your various targets are relaively nearby and
the require minimal delta-v from the mother ship.  A mission to the main belt
might be one possibility for such a mission -- I recall a paper being presented
at an AIAA deisgn conference in Irvine in February where such a proposed
spacecraft was designed by some grad students at UT Austin (I think).  Four
mini-spacecraft would detatch from the main S/C, each visiting a seperate
asteroid and then returning to the main S/C.  After analysis, the main S/C
would then be targeted for the most "interesting" object for further study.

Now, if I could only *find* that paper...  =)


-- 
Jeff Foust              [40 days!]	"Historical analogy is the last refuge
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech	 of people who can't grasp the current
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu			 situation." -- from _Red_Mars_ by
jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov					Kim Stanley Robinson

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61552
From: rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C6BDIo.K7C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:
>
>It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light. 
>
>"maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out
>of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care.
>
>>If they can sell you
>>or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
>>of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.
>
>It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware.
>If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell.
>Write a letter to city hall.

That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia 
recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various
type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell
were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy
a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to
either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.  At some
point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.  
Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code
down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter
is more likely to work.

>
>Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of 
>this thread was space based light sources.
>
Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out 
there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that 
have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult
the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt
to boost public knowledge about space.
>
>-- 
>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>		    "Find a way or make one."
>	             -attributed to Hannibal

Bob Bunge
rbunge@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61553
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Technolgy Investment

In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>It's interesting to note that some of our best tools for cost control
>available in industry today were derived from Government projects.
>GANTT charts, CP/M, and most of the modern scheduling software comes
>from DoD projects and their contractors.  The construction industry


Of course,

	How many government projects after Using PERT, GANT, C.P.M.s
Process flow diagrams,  Level 5 software projects....  actually
come in on schedule and under Cost.  I know the GAO determined
that 80% of all NASA projects  miss their budgets due to failing
to adequately measure  engineering developement costs.   

Me, I am allin favor of Government R&D.  I thought Bell Labs was one of the best 
to do research.   I don't think the government should pour money
into any one sector,  but should engage in projects which naturally
push the state of the art.  

THings like  High tech  construction projects,  apollo  was worth it for the doing.  Running hte national labs.  The SSC is grossly overweight,  but
is a reasonable project at a lower cost.  

Unfortunately support for solo investigators is direly neglected.

Maybe what they should do, is throw out much of the process and just tell
new PH'ds,  you get a 1 time grant of $50,000.00   If you produce, you
can  qualify for other grants.  If you don't  you never get in again.

THis way  young people get a shot at  reserach,  and older  stale 
scientists don't dominate the process.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61554
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: France spied on by the U.S.


You mena in the same way french intelliegence agents steal
documents from US corporate executives?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61555
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6B0By.1C9@zoo.toronto.edu: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
:In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
:>... Also, as implied by other posters, why 
:>do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ...
:You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in
:low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was
:deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason.
:It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has
:no propulsion system of its own.)

Has any thought been given as to how they are going to boost the HST yet?
Give it a push?  I can see the push start cartoons now :-).

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@blue.njit.edu for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61556
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Report on redesign team

In article <Cohen-270493073219@q5022531.mdc.com> Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:
>The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
>but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....
>
>
>The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:
>
> Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
>

I don't think this will work.  Still the same in space
integration problems,  small modules, especially the Bus-1 modules.
the MOL would be bigger.   

Also,  budget problems  may end up stalling developemnt.  
A small undersized station wont have the science community support.

> Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
>

Program effeciencies may cut costs,  but the basic problems
with freedom remain.  in space integration,  too many flights
too build.  not enough science retrurn.  

> Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
>the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
>

Essentialy  $5 billion to build MIR.

I think had NASA  locked onto this design, back in 1984,  with
scarring to support a TRUSS for real expandability,  we'd be looking
at a flying space station.

This looks the most realistic, to me,  IMHO,  but,  i dont know if
there is enough will power  to toss the CDR'd  existing hardware
and then  take a 1/3rd  power cut  and do it this way.

the core  launch station has a lot of positive ideas.  You could stick
in more hatches for  experimental  concept modules.  Like the ET
derived workshops.  Or inflatable modules.

pat
>(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)


Sad but true.

epitaph.  Killed by mis-management.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61557
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <C6DvGH.ApH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>
>>I wrote:
>>>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>
>My data shows that the OMS engines hold 10,900 kg of propellant.  Of that, a 
>substantial fraction is going to be used for the first OMS burn, the reentry
>burn and the reserve.  So Pat, tell us how much fuel the altitude change is
>going to take, and how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1 and extra parts are going
>mass.  If you can make the numbers work out, _then_ I'll be interested.  After
>you show us that it can be done, then tell us how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1
>and extra equipment is going to cost.  
>

I don't know.  Does anyone in NASA land know how much fuel is
budgeted for the altitude change?

Henry,  any figures on the mass  (full)  for the EDO pallet  plus
it's dry weight?  How about for the dry mass of Bus-1?  it was
being de-classified as i checked last.

Also, I need.

1)  current orbital parameters of HST 

2)  projected  orbital parameters after re-boost.

3)  Discovery's  DRY weight

4) HST's Dry weight.


>>I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.
>
>First, while astronauts certainly have done EVAs with minimal planning, that was
>because they _had_ to.  They don't like to do that as a general rule.
>

So how long do they need to train?  a year?  2 years?  somehow
I think 2-3 moths should be adequate.

>Second, remember why they had to improvise during Intelsat 6?  They were trying
>to attach a motor to a piece of hardware that wasn't designed to do that.  
>Trying to shortcut the training is only going to make a repeat more likely.
>

Also because they significantly lacked on-orbit EVA experience.  
The HST is designed for on-orbit servicing.  it should be a lot easier.

>Third, they don't have eight months.  They have however much time is left 
>after someone comes up with a plan, shows it can work and gets it approved.
>You may think I have a pessimistic attitude.  I think it's realistic.  I'm not
>saying that the engineering task is impossible (few engineering tasks are).  
>What I'm saying is that this is neither cost effective nor feasible under NASA
>management.
>

There comes a time in every project, to kill the management.

They can if neccessary, re-schedule the  HST mission.  December is
not a drop dead date, unlike say the LDEF retrieval mission.  


>
>"All they have to do is soup it up?"  Just what does that mean?  
>

I suspect, the BUS-1, may not have enough basic thrust for the HST
re-boost.  it mayu need bigger tanks,  or bigger thrusters.


My understanding is the Second HST servicing mission is not
a contingency.  My understanding is the mission  needs both
a new FOC  and work on the electrical system,  plus
another re-boost.   

>
>>If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
>>saved.
>
>No Pat.  That's $500 million minus the cost of the new hardware, minus the cost
>of the extra struff you want to bring along, minus development and mangement 
>costs, minus extra operating costs.  TANSTAAFL.
>

Somehow, i think the cost of an expendable SMT will be less then
$500 million.

and the extra stuff is real cheap.  NASA has lots of suits,  MMU's,
and the EDO pallets are re-usable.  Oh, one double magnum of champagne,
now there's a couple hundred bucks.

>


>
>Pat, not only is this messy and less reliable than a device that's _made_ to 
>perform this task, it also ignores the point.  There is a desire to have 
>astronauts available so that if the door fails to open, something can be done
>about it.  Unless you can provide a very reliable way of reopening the door,
>you haven't solved the problem.


That door has cycled, X times already.  Once after massive G loading.
I somehow think they can work ou;reliability  methods to ensure the
door works.

Also,  please tell me how some sort of sublimated  material  like
CO2, or H2O  would manage to contaminate the mirror,  anything
that goes to vapor state, shouldn't adhere to the mirror.

somehow, the door,  problem can be worked.  maybe they can put a one
time spring on it.

what do they do now, if the door hangs up.  that door is part
of a intrument safing mechanism.  if it hangs up tomorrow,  it'll
be 8 months until someone gets up there witha crowbar to fix it.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61558
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Combo Propulsion System!?


How difficult would it be to do a solar sail mission to say mercury?

Not much has been there and there is a 23?KM/s delta v to eat off.

could a  solar sail, handle say adiscovery bus, and drop it into
mercury orbit,  good enough for rockets to put it into some
form of polar orbit?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61559
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <C6DF6w.Bur@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
>constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
>there was no drag.  This is why there are quotes around "dragless".


I didn't exactly follow the "dragless" satellitte  thread.

What is the point of it?  are they used for  laser geodesy  missions?
triad seemed to be some sort of navy navigation bird,  but why
be "dragless"  why not just update  orbital parameters?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61560
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to
>have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and
>technology.  Basically, the U.S. Government has gotten into the role of
>supporting research which private industry finds too expensive or too
>long-term.  

>(Historically, this role for the U.S. Gov't was forced upon it because
>of socialism in other countries.  In order for U.S.  industries to
>compete with government-subsidized foreign competitors, the U.S. Gov't
>has taken on the role of subisizing big-ticket or long-lead R&D.)

This definitely had nothing to do with the entry of the government into
the support of science; some of it is relevant in technology.  There
was little involvement of federal funds, or except through support of
state universities, of state funds, for scientific research before WWII.
The US research position had been growing steadily, and the funding was
mainly from university and private foundation funds.  There were not that
many research universities, but they all provided their researchers with
low teaching loads, laboratories, assistants, and equipment, and funds for
travel to scientific meetings.  Not that much, but it was provided, and a
university wishing to get a scholar had to consider research funding as well
as salary.

During WWII, the military and the defense departments found that pure
scientists could do quite well with their problems, even though they 
were not exactly in the areas of the scientists' expertise.  This is
probably because of the "research mind" approach, which is not to try
to find a solution, but to understand the problem and see if a solution
emerges.  This works in stages, and as research scientists were used to
discussion about their problems, the job got done.

The military realized the importance of maintaining scientists for the
future, and started funding pure research after WWII.  But Congress was
unwilling to have military funds diverted into this investment into the
future supply of scientists, and set up other organizations, such as 
NSF, to do the job.  It also set up an elaborate procedure to supposedly
keep politics out.  Also, the government did a job on private foundations,
making it more difficult for them to act to support research.

The worst part of the federal involvement is that in those areas in which
the government supports research the university will not provide funding,
and in fact expects its scholars to bring in net government money.  Suppose,
as has been the case, I have a project which could use the assistance of
a graduate student for a few months.  What do you think happens if I ask
for one?  The answer I will get is, "Get the money from NSF."  Now the
money at the university level is a few thousand, but at the NSF level it
comes to about 20 thousand, and is likely to keep a faculty member from
getting supported.  So the government is, in effect, deciding which projects
get supported, and how much.  

Also, the government decided that the "wealth" should be spread.  So instead
of having a moderate number of universities which were primarily research
institutions, the idea that more schools should get into the act came into
being.  And instead of evaluating scholars, they had to go to evaluating
reseach proposals.  As a researcher, I can tell you that any research proposal
has to be mainly wishful thinking, or as now happens, the investigator conceals
already done work to release it as the results of the research.  What I am
proposing today I may solve before the funding is granted, I may find 
impossible, or I may find that it is too difficult.  In addition, tomorrow
I may get unexpected research results.  Possibly I may bet a bright idea
which solves yesterday's too difficult problem, or a whole new approach to
something I had not considered can develop.  This is the nature of the beast, 
and except for really vague statements, if something can be predicted, it
is not major research, but development or routine activity not requiring 
more than minimal attention of a good researcher.  

I believe that at this time less quality research is being done than would
have happened if the government had never gotten into it, and the government
is trying to divert researchers from thinkers to plodders.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61561
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <schumach.736263860@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com 
(Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

> In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> 
>>How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
>>be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????
> 
> The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle
> means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again 
> if it should stick.
> 

Well, no, during the original deployment mission the HST aperture door was
not opened until after the Shuttle had landed.  

I presume that during a re-boost mission HST would be berthed in the orbiter
with the orbiter bay doors shut; but still there would be lots of contamination
worries.  I understand that the EVA suits are one of the hardest things to 
keep clean.

But I still don't know where the idea is coming from that HST _NEEDS_ a
re-boost.  We have many problems but our orbit is the least of them.  There
is certainly no plan to change the orbit in the first servicing mission in
December.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61562
From: da709@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen Amadei)
Subject: Project Help


Hello, 
 
I am new to this news group, but I need some info.  I am 
currently doing a project for a class on the Internet.  I am
looking for good sources of information on space and astronomy,
more notably, our own solar system.  If anyone knows any good
sites where I can get information about this kinda stuff, please 
e-mail me at STK1663@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU.  Thanx.
 
                                ----Steve
 
(my newsreader doesn't have a .sig yet, sorry.)
-- 
Please Address repondes to Stk1600@Vax003.Stockton.Edu
                                     or
                           Adonchey@Faatcrl.Faa.Gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61563
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rs8hlINN8he@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes...
>  
>You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost,
>and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.

The "artist renderings" that I've seen of the HST reboost still have
the arrays fully extended, with a cradle holding HST at a ~30 degree
angle to the Shuttle.  I think the rendering was conceived before the
array replacemnet was approved, so I'm not sure if the current reboost
will occur with the arrays deployed or not.  However, it doesn't 
appear that an array retraction was necessary for reboost.
> 
>For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that
>there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks,
>etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could
>be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for
>safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile
>would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.)
> 

Thanks for the input on GRO's S/A design constraints.  That would 
explain the similar design on UARS.

>Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to
>orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing.
> 

Heck, the MMS project used to design _missions_ with servicing in mind.
The XTE spacecraft was originally designed as an on-orbit replacement
for the instrument module on EUVE.  That way, you get two instruments
for the price of one spacecraft bus (the Explorer Platform).  A 
second on-orbit replacement was also considered, with the FUSE telescope.

>-- 
>		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
>					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61564
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Drag-free satellites

On Sat, 1 May 1993 23:13:39 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

> No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
> constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
> there was no drag.  

     Well, almost. It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can 
engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order 
harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a 
satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of 
months to years. 

     My favorite example of this is the Soviet/Russian heavy ELINT 
satellites of the Cosmos 1603 class, which are in 14:1 resonance. In 
particular, C1833 has undergone two periods of prolonged *gain* in 
altitude, the current one having started in June 1991; the mean altitude 
of the satellite is now as high as it has ever been since launch on 18 
March 1987. (Looking at the elements for C1833 also shows the 
limitations of NORAD's software -- but that's another story.) 

    This probably has little relevance to space stations, since the 71 
degree orbits of the C1603 satellites are at 850 km, which is 
unacceptably far into the inner van Allen belt for manned platforms. But 
it's kind of interesting from the point of view of the physics of the 
situation. 

    (Orbital elements for these satellites are available on request.) 


Allen Thomson                  SAIC                       McLean, VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there an opinion here? If so, it's mine, not SAIC's


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61565
From: isaackuo@jell-o.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Drag-free satellites

In article <15821.2be3e125@cpva.saic.com> thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes:
>On Sat, 1 May 1993 23:13:39 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:
>
>> No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
>> constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
>> there was no drag.  
>
>     Well, almost. It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can 
>engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order 
>harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a 
>satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of 
>months to years. 

A harmonic of the Earth's gravitational field?  What IS a harmonic of the
Earth's gravitational field?

>     My favorite example of this is the Soviet/Russian heavy ELINT 
>satellites of the Cosmos 1603 class, which are in 14:1 resonance. In 

14:1 resonance with WHAT?  It's not like there's any wavelength or frequency
to the Earth's gravitational field.  Now, there' might be some interesting
interactions with the Moon's tidal effect--is that what you're talking about?
>
>    This probably has little relevance to space stations, since the 71 
>degree orbits of the C1603 satellites are at 850 km, which is 
>unacceptably far into the inner van Allen belt for manned platforms. But 
>it's kind of interesting from the point of view of the physics of the 
>situation. 

What are the physics of the situation?  The only way I can see gravitational
effects being useful in adding energy to an object orbiting Earth is some
sort of interaction with the moon.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61566
From: perky@acs.bu.edu (Melissa Sherrin)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image


I'm afraid I was not able to find the GIFs... is the list 
updated weekly, perhaps, or am I just missing something?

   _______
  (       )
 (_  (     )
   (      )
  (    )  )
 (  (     )
(__________)
 / / / / /
 Melissa Sherrin
 perky@acs.bu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61567
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:

>That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia 
>recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various
>type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell

Uh, why do they have to ask a state commision? Unless the state's buying...

Such a process will only increace the overhead to the power company
of selling different types of light, and will decreace the likleihood
that they will do so. And any efficient lights they might have been
planning in the future, go down the drain.....

>were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy
>a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to
>either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.

You could order it special. If enough people did so, it would be 
low cost. Last I checked, you could use UPS to buy stuff in Arizona
before going there.

Finally, I'm sure your state has things like small factories and
machine shops. You could go into business making lights that are
cheaper to use (thanks to their higher efficiency and the
fact that they aren't wasting energy on broadcasting to space)
and therefore _better_ than the old style...

>  At some
>point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.

Five year plans have to be enacted or the planning for the economy
will fall apart.
  
>Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..

As if the clean air act really cleaned up the air...

>  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code
>down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter
>is more likely to work.

_MY_ *experience* seems to suggest that you're trying too hard
to *educate* them (with the same methods used in American schools
to make any subject whatsoever as relevant and boring as Proto-Ugric)
instead of *selling* them on the idea.

...
>Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out 
>there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that 
>have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult
>the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt
>to boost public knowledge about space.

Well, wake up. Space is becoming a field of human endeavor
instead of just something we can look at from a long long
way away. There are practical space projects that could conceivably
(although probably not) cause lots of light pollution, and 
have been argued against on those grounds, even though they
might open up such possibilities, that people could vacation on
Mars if they wanted really dark skies...


>Bob Bunge
>rbunge@access.digex.com
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61568
From: steve@bcsfse.ca.boeing.com (Steve LeCompte)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
|> [Description of Boeing study of two-staged spaceplane using
|> supersonic ramjets deleted.]
|> 
|> In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
|> reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
|> to fool around with exotic airplanes.
|> 

No, it means that Boeing has something called foresight and vision...
Boeing became the success it is today by working on what you call "exotic
airplanes".

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 61569
From: gene@jackatak.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars?

All consipiracy theories aside, (they are watching though :-)), will NASA 
try to image the Cydonia region of Mars where the "Face
" is? If they can image it with the High resolution camera, it would 
settle the FACE question once and for all. I mean, with a camera that 
will have a pixel resolution of about 6 feet, we'd know whether all this 
stuff is real or imagination. 

Come on JPL and NASA folks, try to image it and settle this thing.

--
     gene@jackatak.raider.net (Gene Wright)
------------jackatak.raider.net   (615) 377-5980 ------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62104
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Over zealous shuttle critics

khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the
>other shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and
>most revolutionary space vehicle.

Ha!

>One cannot argue with the fact that
>it flies, lands, and is reusable. 

Watch me. It flies. It lands. It gets rebuilt.


>In my opinion, these were the only
>appropriate specifications for this program.

That's not what they told us back in the '70's.

>It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow to the
>X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies.

1. It isn't a logical follow-on. A logical follow-on would have
been either a Russian "snowfox" type thingey (for the lifting bodies)
or something like MMI's Space Van (or Boeing's TSTO, or the airbreathing
TSTO the military is allegedly _using_ now that probably cost less
to develop than the shuttle does to fly for a year).

>The engineering specs that the guys in the trenches had were to
>develop a system which was man-ratable, could land reliably, and could
>be reflown.  These goals were quite visionary for the 1970's, and I
>would argue that they are challenging even today, including for the
>DC-X program.

Keep that attitude, and it'll be a couple centuries before we get real
access to space, unless another country without all that baggage comes
along and kicks our ass in the space race.

>I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the
>space shuttle program.  If you have such documents, I would find them most
>revealing and interesting.  As far as I can tell, the only people touting a 
>1 flight per week flight rate were people on Capitol Hill or selling books 
>to the general public.  

Or NASA HQ. That doesn't give the rest of the program plausible deniability
if we deceide that it wasn't worth the money we've spent, which is by now
probably a lot more than Apollo.

>IMHO, political statements in the halls of the US Congress are not
>admissable as engineering specs because specs should be determined by
>NASA/DOD and contractors, not by Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents.
>Missions are defined by political leaders, but not the engineering
>specs.

Yes, but it gets sold on the basis of the political statements.
You're saying basically that it met the engineering specs (which is
questionable, IMHO) so it's a success, never mind that you couldn't
get the funding the shuttle eats with those engineering specs in
a thousand years.

>The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle.  This automatically
>qualifies it as an unparalleled engineering success.  You could argue
>about its political success.  But engineering wise, it is clearly the
>most advanced machine ever flown.  I argue that engineering and
>technical data for hypersonic flight is valuable in and of itself.
>Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the basis of economics.

You can get hypersonic flight data with an X-15 or a follow-on X-15
type vehicle for much less.

And economics and engineering are interchangable; engineering in the
absense of economics is basically just physics, and in terms of physics,
the shuttle looks like a failure next to the X-15.


Then Henry wrote:

HS>Sorry, support that I can arrange for launchers all goes to launchers
HS>that I have some hope of riding some day.  At the moment, that's
HS>DC-X's hoped-for successors.

>I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in 
>support of the DC-X program .  Your support of DC-X is based on hopes.
>My support for the shuttle program is based on record. 

The shuttle program has a bad record. I _once_ had hopes for the
shuttle program. By now I know those hopes were false. 

All I have for DC-X and similar and dissimilar experimental vehicles
are hopes. But at least I know they aren't false hopes yet.

I did support the shuttle, way back when. It didn't do nearly what
it was supposed to. It's time to move on to something that might do
the job of orbital delivery better. Or at all.


>I think that it is 
>also important to note that I do not object to DC-X.  It is visionary.  
>I originally posted:

>> I like the DC-X idea...  and I am really hopeful that it'll be a stunning success 

>Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the
>proven Shuttle program.  Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when
>shuttle is exactly what you guys need in order to learn how to operate
>DC-X on-orbit.

We don't want to learn how to operate on orbit. It launches, it
shoves out the payload, it lands. It doesn't waste payload hauling
up and down EDO pallets and the like.

The only thing to be learned from shuttle is how *not* to build a
launcher.

Finally: that bit about the "proven" shuttle. Are you hoping you can
tell a lie enough times and get someone to believe it?

>I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle
>and the Soyuz project.  Although, I may disagree with your method
>of analysis.  You probably will disagree with mine. 8-)  I think that
>the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and
>technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?) 

How much science and technology could have been done is the money spent
on shuttle had been spent differently?

...
>As for now, we need to stop thinking of DC-X and shuttle as mutually exclusive.

Learn about economics and the current budget realities in the United States,
please.

>Thanks for your time.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62113
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?

In article <1993May11.200419.13494@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes:
>  Its seems a bit scarry to me that such a project which for the first
>time in years promisses some hope in changing the current trend in
>massively overpriced boosting capability, lacks much publicity...

The people involved in it have been building hardware rather than writing
press releases.  This is not a high-manpower project; they don't *have*
spare people sitting around.

As I understand it, there has also been some feeling on the part of some
of the project management that publicity was not a good idea.  A lot of
people have been working on changing this view, with some success.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62114
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

It should be noted that the US benefitted not only from German science and
technology after WW2 but also from British science and technology. From the
discovery and manufacture of penicillin to jet engines, swing wing aircraft,
the hovercraft etc etc. all were shipped lock-stick-and-barel across the
Atlantic. We still are suffering from this sort of thing because of some of the
more parochial aspects of US procurement policy. Meiko, a British 
parallel computer company, for example, has now moved most of its facilities to
the US since that was the only way it could sell stuff over there.
                                                                  
-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62115
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Aurora GIF request

Has someone scanned in an artist's rendering of Aurora?  If so, is the GIF
available somewhere?

Please reply via email.

Thanks,


Craig

+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|Craig Keithley          |"If looks could kill, they probably will.      |
|Apple Computer, Inc.    |In games without frontiers, war without tears" |
|keithley@apple.com      |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)              |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62116
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <1993May11.153010.438@den.mmc.com> seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes:
>I can't speak for the Russian probes, but the last I heard, the 1997 US
>probe is planned to have air-bags on it (seriously!) to cushion the
>impact.  Hopefully, it won't be a "bouncer" (should just hit and go
>"thud").

The JPL/San Gabriel AIAA session last week showed the Russian
lander encased in a single large airbag with ravelable stitches.
The Russian design is pretty firm and hardware is due from
international experimenters by 1/94.
The proposed 1997 American lander has a bunch of airbags shaped
like a bunch of grapes.  They were dropping it in the desert last
month.  It may have a 20 kg mini-rover in it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62117
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)

Ken:

Your arguments are thoughtful but you are going up against the Big
Boys if you're tackling Henry.  Allen Sherzer will doubtless chime in
on the subject of staggering operational costs, too.  Good luck, son.

In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
>and medical related packages.  

Ahem.  The Russians are in the Free World now, or at least it would be
Politically Correct to contend so.

>I am hopeful that DC-X,  or whatever the follow-on is eventually called, 
>will perform as you state.  But right now, I must admit that I am more 
>skeptical than ever.  

It will be tough to make DC-X succeed, and to turn it into an
operational orbital vehicle.  Doubtless it will fail to meet some of
the promised goals.  The reason people are so fond of it is that it's
the *only* chance we have now, or will have for a *long* time to come,
to develop a launch vehicle with radically lower costs.  

There is no Shuttle successor in funded development, NASP is dwindling
away, and ALS/NLS/Spacelifter sure as hell aren't gonna knock any
zeroes off that $2000-$3000 per pound cost.   Part of the blame for
this must be placed on a Shuttle program that consumes many annual
billions of the, er, Free World's available space cash.  As you will
no doubt hear from many correspondents in the days to come. (-:

DC-X is an attempt to break out of the vicious cycle by keeping
development costs low and flying incremental "X-plane" hardware.
It's been, to my mind, incredibly successful already-- they've built a
complex prototype in under 600 days for under 60 megabucks.  I would
have been extremely skeptical that this could be accomplished in 1990s
America, never mind flying the thing, getting a successor funded, or
building the DC-Y.

I'm sure you know well that launch costs are THE basic problem for any
expansion of astronautics.  I don't see a realistic  prospect for
beating down those costs, for multi-ton payloads, anywhere else.  If
the DC flops, it'll be business as usual in space.  The Nineties and
the Double-Oughts will look just like the Seventies and Eighties, a
prospect too depressing to bear.

(Pegasus represents another assault on the problem from a different
direction.  It doesn't lower cost-per-pound but it offers an orbital
launch for under ten megabucks.  It's creating its own market for
small payloads.)

I read the magazines and I've attended the last two IAFs. There are
plenty of engineers with paper ideas for cheaper launch systems, some
of them as good as or better than SSTO.  There is no sign in today's
world that any of these designs will be allowed anywhere near an
assembly line.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:
[...deleting some things I'm not going to prove tonight...]
>3  that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable
>DC-X successor

Strawman.  Is anybody seriously proposing this?  References, please. 
The DC must be developed in the real-world funding climate, which
includes a NASA ferociously committed to continuing Shuttle
operations, as well as the "bird in the hand" argument your common
sense tells you.   If DC-Y flies at all, it flies alongside the
Shuttle, not instead of it.

Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful
for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated.

>4  Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and
>technical payloads.

If a DC-X successor can fly a 10,000-kg payload for $1M, or even $5M,
rather than the $40M it now costs, more people will be able to afford
more payloads... for the same money, you can fly several satellites
instead of one.  Big outfits can fly multi-satellite series.  Little
outfits will be able to fly spacecraft of their own, instead of
begging a ride.  This is just supply and demand.  You should be able
to convince *yourself* that point 4 will be true, assuming DC makes a
big difference in costs.  Do you have some reason to think not?

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62118
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?

What is NASA's annual budget?
This year will do, a few years back wpuld be nice too
but I need this item fast so emails off the top of your head very
much appreciated (FAQs vanish here!).

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.034%)
                             up another notch as of end April 1993!-----^
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62126
From: jennifer@arts.com (Jennifer Witt)
Subject: space camp



I'm replying to someone who asked for information on space camp.
I have a brochure that has all different schedules. What age, what 
level and what program do you want to know the schedule of? Most of the 
missions are 5 to 8 days long. The address for Huntsville is:

Alabama Space Science
Exhibit Commission
U.S. Space and Rocket Center
One Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807

- Jennifer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
********    WHY  ARE  WE  HERE,  WHAT  DOES  IT  MEAN   *********************??



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62127
From: gord@jericho.uucp (Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.


Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers
themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based
critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to
completely sterilize the landers?

I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the
way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right
circumstances.


-- 
Gord Wait 	SMOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre
uunet!jericho!gord
gord%jericho@uunet.uu.net
or even some days

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62129
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
From: kubo@zariski.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)


>greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia
>(silver age) of current science.....
>
>is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently?
>please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade...
>completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really
>NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...)


Nope.  We're just living off the inheritance from our forefathers,
reading dusty old books, and exchanging baroque incantations among
a small circle of devotees.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62130
From: elowitz@noao.edu (Mark Elowitz)
Subject: Need help in finding address...

Could someone please help me. I am trying to find the 
address to the TDRS receiving station at White Sands
Missile Range. I am interested in possible employment
and would like to write for information.

Thanks...


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62131
From: cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master)
Subject: Re: McElwaine FAQ

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <C6vI08.6Dx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this
>>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something
>>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted.
>>
>>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>>--
>>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>>		    "Find a way or make one."
>>	             -attributed to Hannibal


>McElwaine got his access revoked?  Finally!!!!

>And they say it couldn't be done.  If we can rid the net of McElwaine,
>then anything is possible :-
>Simon


Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back!



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62150
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?

In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-)
>You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-)

If I may offer a constructive criticism, perhaps you should decide if you
love vehicles or the use they are put to. I, myself, think the F-86 is
a beautiful aircraft, but rest assured, I wouldn't even think of flying
it in combat today. Most of us want access to space and judge vehicles
on how they perform.

>We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life.  

Not to this degree.

>Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post 
>as touting DC-X is interesting.  

Why?

>DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?).  

Your wrong. The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has
the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle
isn't reusable, it's salvagable).

>I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at 
>supersonic speeds.  

The flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.

>How much in DC-X is redundant?  That's the real question.

The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
thrust and still land safely.

>Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?).

Everything can suffer from catastrophic failure but that's not the same
thing. Shuttle simply isn't a fault tolerent design, SSTO is.

>As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations.  

You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You
wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
harmful side effects would you?

>While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X 
>as you (and apparently others) are.  

You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it
will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do
need to do to build SSTO.

>But, DC-X will still have failures.  It is the nature of aerospace R&D.  

Again, refering to the DC-1, it will provide fully intact abort theroughout
the flight envelop. Shuttle doesn't. DC is fault tollerent, Shuttle isn't.

>It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying.  

Not true. Build a passenger pallet (a fairly easy thing to do) and it will
carry passengers.

>The impression I had
>when I visited MacDac Huntington Beach's Open House was that the payload space
>was limited and the man-ratable version was decades away.

I would suggest you talk to the DC-X crew themselves. Their original
schedule had an operational DC-1 flying in 96.

>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
>and medical related packages.  As for now, it is our only ticket into space 
>and has my support.

Your ignoring the dammage it does. Mannes space has a reputation for being
unreliable and hugely expensive. Shuttle supporters only make it easy for
opponents of manned space to kill it.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:

The only way to prove those things is to build it.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62317
From: Keith.Stein@f118.n109.z1.permanet.org (Keith Stein)
Subject: Re: Gps launch

Next GPS launch is scheduled for June 24th.

 * Origin: No. VA Astronomy Club 703-256-4777 (1:109/118)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62318
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?

In article <1993May11.200419.13494@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes:

>  Its seems a bit scarry to me that such a project which for the first
>time in years promisses some hope in changing the current trend in
>massively overpriced boosting capability, lacks much publicity.

That may change next month; at least I hope it will. A couple of hundred
journalists have requested press passes for the test flights. Sustaining
that publicity however, will be a problem. 

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------33 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62319
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

In article <1993May13.101820.21298@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.

>We have to be careful to define what is payload and what is propulsion
>and spacecraft structure. 

Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it
payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to LEO roughly the
same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.

>of course Saturn lifted more than Shuttle,
>but it's cost to orbit in same year dollars was higher.

They where pretty much the same in terms of cost/pound. A resurected
Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound (if development costs are ignored)
which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.

    Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------33 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62373
From: thierry@curlie.UUCP (Thierry Lach)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master) writes:

> etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes:
> 
> >Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
> >about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
> >going on in the space community, he seems to know it. 
> >	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek:
> >	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you?
> >	1) Do you ever eat or sleep?
> >	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research? 
> >	Or do you just use an account there?
> >Just curious.
> 
> >Aaron
> 
> Well, Henry Spencer is *also* responsible for parts of Cnews, and other
> internet related things.
> 
> Quite a guy.  :)
> 
> Onya Henry!
> 
> c.
> 
This question comes up frequently enough that there should be a faq
about it...

============================================================================
Thierry Lach                                curlie!thierry@sycom.mi.org
#include "std.disclaimer"
"Sufficiently superior technology is indistingushable from magic"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62374
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <lv8fpoINNqo1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes:

> Some new information has been discovered recently. Microscopic fossils
> have been found in VERY old rocks. The theory is that this life is so
> old that it must have been destroyed during the periodic intense 
> meteorite bombardments that were a feature of the early solar system.
> Under this theory life originated on Earth multiple times (between
> multiple meteorite bombardments), and therefore the conditions for
> the creation of life cannot be that unlikely.


This was all badly reported in the news.  There is no evidence that
signs of life found in old rock predate putative planet-sterilizing
events.  Rather, the argument was that if life arose shortly the last
sterilizing event, then it must be easily formed.  The *inference*
was that life originated before and was destroyed, but there was
no evidence of that.

However, even this argument is flawed.  It could well be that origin of
life requires specific conditions (say, a certain composition of the
atmosphere) that do not last for long.  So, perhaps life formed
early only because it would have had no other chance to do so,
not because it was likely that life would originate under those
conditions.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62375
From: dwilmot@zen.holonet.net (Dick Wilmot)
Subject: Re: looking for PLANET MAPS

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes:

>> Where can I get topographical maps of Mars, Venus, other terrestrial
>>bodies?

>I still use the old National Geographic maps from the Apollo and Viking eras.

>The other people to ask would be the US Geological Survey.  They have maps of
>just about everything.  Unfortunately, I do not have their address.

There is an office on the middle left US coast on Middlefield Road in
Menlo Park, CA (415) 329-4390

>-- 
>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>		    "Find a way or make one."
>	             -attributed to Hannibal
-- 
          Dick Wilmot
          Editor, Independent RAID Report
          (510) 938-7425


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62385
From: 0004651657@mcimail.com (THE ARTSTONE COLLECTIVE)
Subject: Near Miss Asteroids

If by chance you answered my request for NEO Asteroids in the last two days
please send them to me directly. I by mistake deleted instead of read
all the space-request messages .

Thanks and sorry.

Harry G. Osoff
Science & Technology Editor
Access News Network

jukebox@mcimail.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62386
From: tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

In article <511151978@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>The most revealing comparison between Shuttle and Soyuz is cost. All
>other comparisons are apples and oranges.
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb

I like this statement, though for my own reasons.  Cost comparisons depend
a lot on whether the two options are similar, and *then* it becomes very
revealing to consider what their differences are.  Can Soyuz launch the
Long Exposure Facility?  Course not.  Will the Shuttle take my television 
relay to LEO by year's end?  Almost certainly not, but the Russians are
pretty good about making space accessible on a tight schedule.

Comparing S and SS points up that there are TWO active space
launcher-and-work-platform resources, with similarities and differences.
Where they are in direct competition, we may get to see some market
economics come into play.

tombaker
                                   --------------------------------------
                                   My employer's opinions are not my own.
                                   I am self-employed.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62387
From: tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker)
Subject: Re: Another SF Irritation RELIEVED! Doctor Who vindicated.

In article <schumach.736495556@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>This "reverse the polarity!" crap always bugged the hell out of me, too,
>until I found an actual, live, real-life example of it working! I quote
>from Aviation Week and Space Technology for 2 July 1990, page 25:
>
>	He [Colonel Charles F. Stirling, speaking of the problem of
>	fuel bubble formation in Titan 4 Aerojet LR87 engines] said
>	engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had run into
>	the same problem and suggested that the Air Force look at the
>	effect of Aerozene 50 decomposition. The fix, now flown three
>	times without incident, was to reverse the inlet and outlet
>	portions of the hot gas cooler.
>
>! Once again, life imitates art. 

How about the discussion of the STS Tether experiment.  Ran forward,
it would suck energy from the Earth's magnetic field, while trivially
slowing the Shuttle.  It could also have run backward -- if they ran 
electricity through the tether the other way, it would have trivially
propelled the Shuttle faster.

But an even better example comes to mind.  There's this electronics guy,
someone like Craig Anderton or Don Lancaster.  Ten years ago he wrote about
an invention of his.  He could take a light-detector, run current through
it at about a hundred times its rating, and it would glow.  He got legal
rights to this design of a combination "fiber optic emitter/receiver".  This
turned out to be the basic unit of ATT's  (I think) plan to bring Brazil's
communications system into the 21st century.  (The article was mostly about
his legal wranglings with the company that eventually got him well-compensated
for his invention.)

tombaker
(yes that's my real name)
                                   (My employer's opinion's are not my own.)
                                   (I am self-employed)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62388
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

Someone named Hansk asked about pictures.

Well, there is an archive of portraits in xfaces format at
ftp.uu.net. Henry Spencer's picture is there somewhere, along
with several thousand others.

I don't remember the path, though it should be easy to find.
Remember, though, it seems to use both internet and uucp
addresses.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62389
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Vandenberg launches?

In article <1993May15.210927.23846@mri.com> paulc@mri.com (Paul Carroll) writes:
>I know about the phone numbers, etc. to get Kennedy/Canaveral
>launch information, but is there any equivalent way of finding out
>about launches at Vandenberg?

Bear in mind that a lot of the Vandenberg launch traffic is military and
at least semi-secret.  They aren't interested in publicizing it beforehand.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62390
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

In article <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes:
>My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer 
>some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.

Apologies...  Your mail is probably in the pile that arrived just before
I got sick about a month ago...  A reply will appear eventually...

>Now, what I really would like to see is an interview with Mr Spencer. A
>magazine (photograph!), or even better a tv program. (No! I want both!)

So far, there have been none (unless you count an interview in The Amateur
Computerist about the history of netnews, which may be disqualified because
TAC's budget doesn't run to reproducing photos...).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62391
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-)

In article <1993May13.212559.19618@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <C6z8Ax.KCx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

>	What evidence is there that there is a trend towards greater
>species diversity over time? What I see going on right now is a major
>extinction event, and  it isn't clear to me that the diversity 10K years
>ago was necessarily greater than 600 million years ago.

Well, there are several bursts in species diversity I can think of.
The Cambrian and Ordovician explosions resulted in a vast increase
in animal diversity. Likewise, after the one-two punch of the
Permian and Triassic extinctions, the number of marine animals
rose steadily (**) to an all-time high (*) just prior to the spread 
of humans.

(**) biggest exception being the K/T (bye bye dinos) extinction

(*) about 800 families

Also, plants arose from green algae and colonized the land in
succesive sweeps. Mosses colonized very wet environments first,
ferns (who had evolved vascular tissues) took over more territory
when they evolved (1). These were eventually (mostly) replaced by gymnosperms
(pines and the like) (2) and then (mostly) displaced by angiosperms (flowering
plants -- now the dominant plant group on the planet(3). Fungi
also radiated greatly with the invasion of the land. 

(1) around the carboniferous (up to about 200 families)
(2) around the triassic (up to maybe 250 families)
(3) starting in the cretaceous (rising to about 600 families currently)

It's unclear (to me at least) what the max equilibrium number
of species the earth can hold (***) and if it has ever hit this
in the past. It could be (warning: speculation alert) that
diversity has never reached a peak because mass extinctions
happen often enough to keep the total number down.

(***) This would depend a great deal on how fragmented
specific ecosystems were. 

See Cowen's book "History of Life" for a not-too-technical
run-down on, well, like the title sez, the history of life.
Or see, Wilson's "Diversity of Life" for a view centered more
on current ecology -- this is (IMHO) the best popular biology
book of (what the hell, I'll say it) all time. 

>							James Nicoll

Follow-ups to t.o.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62392
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote


That's assuming it could get built by them.

Of course,  it would probably sport Cruise missile Racks,
Sidewinder Missile tubes,  Bomb Points,  extra drop tanks,
a Full ECM suite, Terrain following radar  and stealth
materials.

IT might not fly,  but a technology demonstrator does
not require  actual flight.

:-)
pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62393
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

In article <C6zyuE.CGC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(However, I do agree with Richard that if you're planning short missions,
>it may not be worth the trouble of providing anything more than a urine-
>disposal rig and a few baggies.)

I don't know about C-5's,  but on C-130's  which are regularly used
for Medium  haul  Personnel transport by the Army,  only have a
funnel and a garden hose  in the aft.  The female personnel
hate long trips in the box cars.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62394
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

On Sat, 15 May 1993 01:45:54 GMT, hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) said:

Hans> As somebody replied on whether the space shuttle is connected to
Hans> Usenet: "No. Of course the main flow of information would be up,
Hans> unless Henry Spencer would be aboard, in which case the main
Hans> flow of information would be down."

Gene Miya says that Henry will never go aloft in the Shuttle; the
payload bay isn't big enough for his chocolate chip cookies.

When Henry was here at Dryden, he was looking pretty covetously at the
SR-71s and the F-104s, even though they don't have much cookie space.
I guess he figured that he could manage for a short flight....
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62395
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Shuttle and Pennicillin


Pennicillin if i have everything correct,  was a highly valuable
Myco-toxin,  discovered during WW2.  It proved to have an amazing
Bacterio-cidal effect without human toxicity.   It's immediate
administration  showed immediate dramatic results  solving
problems  that previously were fatal.  Although initially
enormously expensive to culture,  within 3 years,
the price had fallen at least two orders of magnitude,
and within 10 years,  was  not much more expensive then
aspirin.  Penicillin was also usable for an amazingly wide
class of infections.

Centoxin is a drug that is not passing FDA approval.  It promised
amazing results for Toxic shock, a rapidly fatal disease.
It consumed enormous amounts of funding  in testing and
developement,  However it works  less then 1 in 5 times
of administration  and costs $2,000 per administration
with no promise of any reduction in manufacturing cost.
The drug thus costs $10,000 per useful case,  and is
implicated in a slight increase in mortality for some
patients.

I would not dare to compare the shuttle to Pennicillin,
but to centoxin.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62396
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: DC-X Publicity



No.  Do this.

Have the DC-X1, make an unscheduled landing at teh 50 yard
line during the halftime show of This years Superbowl.

ABC  will have more reporters there  for that,  then at
any news event.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62397
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: DC-X Publicity


Even better.  Make up pete conrad in a Martian Suit,
and have him get ou;t  and throw a football
to the refs.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62398
From: shoran@NMSU.Edu (Stephen Horan)
Subject: White Sands & DC-X

It is interesting to note in the past few days' correspondance that some
believe that poor old New Mexico is not capable of hosting a commercial
space launch business.  For many reasons, it can, and we here on the front
lines see no reason why it should not.  The 'spaceport political publicity'
referred to the other day had its intended effect - the state of New Mexico
did establish the start of the necessary government infrastructure to back a
commercial space port.  The commanding general at WSMR is in full support of
dual-use for the facilities.  The WSMR location also has some strategic
advantages in the form of necessary infrastructure and controlled air space
to support the project.  Just because the folks involved have not done the
traditional aerospace-equivalent of vapor-ware by inviting folks out to kick
non-existent tires but have been merely doing their job to prepare for
launch, don't think that nothing has happened.  From my interactions with
the MACDAC folks, I get the impression that they want to set a firm,
believable launch date based on vehicle readiness and not just some fiction
to plug a space on a calendar.  I believe that all will happen this summer
and don't worry, the locals here are planning to let everyone know when it
does occur.
Stephen Horan
shoran@nmsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62399
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott

In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
There was an editorial about this in the Times the following
Tuesday.

Are others as upset about this as I am?  I feel that a global
boycott of anyone involved with such a project would be a good
idea.  Perhaps it could be made illegal in various countries
around the world?  Do others agree?

-david

[Relevant messages found on the net:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: webb@tsavo.hks.com (Peter Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Stopping the sky-vandals
Date: 13 May 1993 21:17:22 GMT
Organization: HKS, Inc.
Distribution: world



If you don't want to see Space Marketing put up orbiting billboards, write
them, or call them, and tell them so.  You might also write your
congresspeople.  Space Marketing can be reached at:

Attn: Mike Lawson
Public Relations Dept.
Space Marketing
1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600
Rosewell, GA 30076
(404)-442-9682

--
Peter Webb 					webb@hks.com
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.		Voice: 401-727-4200
1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860		FAX: 401-727-4208 

[Alternatively, you could try to find out who their clients
 will be and tell *them* how you feel.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Subject: Light Pollution (Space Ads) Information
Keywords: light pollution, advertisements
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:45:36 GMT

        Dave Crawford (crawford@noao.edu), Executive Director of the 
    International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), sent me information on where 
    you can write in regards to the proposed "Billboards in the Sky" and
    asked me to post it:

        Karen Brown
        Center for the Study of Commercialism
        1875 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
        Washington, D.C. 20009-5728
        U.S.A.

        Telephone:  202-797-7080
        Fax:        202-265-4954

        Please note that I have no involvement whatsoever with the CSC.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the Sky
Date: 10 May 93 21:51:11 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: algol.jsc.nasa.gov

F.Baube[tm] (flb@flb.optiplan.fi) wrote:
[...]
: That's roughly akin to saying let's let Anaconda strip-mine 
: the Grand Canyon so that strip-mining can boldly go where no 
: strip mining technology has gone before .. because after all, 
: mining means profits, and profits mean technological advance-
: ment, and technogical advancement means prosperity, and pros-
: perity means happiness, and so to hell with the Grand Canyon ..

Space advertisement in LOW Earth Orbit is very short term -- on the
order of a few years before the orbit decays.  (Higher orbits last
longer.)  Advertisers will certainly be aware of the environmental
aspects of their advertising.  Fred's argument is roughly akin to
saying that it's bad to cut down trees, so we shouldn't advertise in
newspapers.  Think that through, Fred.

Picture this: Our space billboard is a LARGE inflatable structure,
filled with "bio-degradable" foam instead of gas.  It scoops up space
debris as it orbits, thus CLEANING the space environment and bringing
you The Pause That Refreshes at the same time.  Because of the large
drag coefficient, it will de-orbit -- safely burning up -- within a
year.

Embedded in the foam structure is a small re-entry vehicle, which does
not burn up during entry.  It contains the electronics and propulsion
system (which may be refurbished and re-used) as well as space science
experiments proposed and built by high school students in
advertiser-sponsored science fairs.

Advertisers buy time on the billboard, whose surface is made up of
tiny mirrors controlled by the avionics package.  The avionics can
reconfigure the mirrors to reflect different messages at different
parts of the globe.  Clever programming allows different languages
to every country.

During orbital night, the mirrors turn perpendicular to the surface,
and small lights are revealed.  The lights spell out messages for all
to see.

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

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62400
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
>section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
>in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
>reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
>and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
>There was an editorial about this in the Times the following
>Tuesday.

I realy like this idea, it would be wonderfull to see such a 
big bright satelite on the night sky. I will even promise to
try to buy whatever product it advertises to help this project.

Please write to Space Marketing and encourage this project.
I sadly dosent have enough money to invest in it.

>congresspeople.  Space Marketing can be reached at:

>Attn: Mike Lawson
>Public Relations Dept.
>Space Marketing
>1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600
>Rosewell, GA 30076
>(404)-442-9682



>Space advertisement in LOW Earth Orbit is very short term -- on the
>order of a few years before the orbit decays.  (Higher orbits last
>longer.)  Advertisers will certainly be aware of the environmental
>aspects of their advertising.  Fred's argument is roughly akin to
>saying that it's bad to cut down trees, so we shouldn't advertise in
>newspapers.  Think that through, Fred.

>Picture this: Our space billboard is a LARGE inflatable structure,
>filled with "bio-degradable" foam instead of gas.  It scoops up space
>debris as it orbits, thus CLEANING the space environment and bringing
>you The Pause That Refreshes at the same time.  Because of the large
>drag coefficient, it will de-orbit -- safely burning up -- within a
>year.

>Embedded in the foam structure is a small re-entry vehicle, which does
>not burn up during entry.  It contains the electronics and propulsion
>system (which may be refurbished and re-used) as well as space science
>experiments proposed and built by high school students in
>advertiser-sponsored science fairs.

>Advertisers buy time on the billboard, whose surface is made up of
>tiny mirrors controlled by the avionics package.  The avionics can
>reconfigure the mirrors to reflect different messages at different
>parts of the globe.  Clever programming allows different languages
>to every country.

>During orbital night, the mirrors turn perpendicular to the surface,
>and small lights are revealed.  The lights spell out messages for all
>to see.

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

>                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
>                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
>                           JULY 1969, A.D.
>                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)120 13706

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62401
From: vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the
folks who want to boycott anyone who has anything to do with this project are
both right.

That is, I think that space advertising is an interesting idea, and if someone
wants to try it out, more power to them. However, a company may discover that
the cost of launch is not the only cost of advertising, and a company who 
gauged that ill will would lose them more revenue than the advertising would
gain might decide to bow out of the project.

I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
in poor taste.

Tom Courtney


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62402
From: wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes:
>I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
>I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
>richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
>in poor taste.
>
>Tom Courtney

I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
to an astronomer like Sagan.

Reid Cooper


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62403
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:

>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.

Well, we already suffer from street hoardings.  If you don't
watch TV, you are free of commercials there, but if you want
to go from A to B you cannot escape beer ads.

>us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
>by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
>to an astronomer like Sagan.

I think the right time to stop this proposal is now.

If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter).  Microscum will want to
name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.  Where do we draw the line?
Historically mankind is not very good at drawing fine lines.

I'm normally extremely enthusiastic about all forms of resource
allocation for space research; I think it's the most important
investment possible for mankind in the long run.  But this is not
the way to get the money.

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62404
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

In article <pgf.737329707@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>>In article <C6z3sw.1As@rice.edu> conor@owlnet.rice.edu (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes:
>>>In article <1srfii$79k@suntan.eng.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>>>Huh?  Please state your criteria for selecting the "greatest philosopher"
>>>title.  P.S. Ever read any Nietzsche?

>>Greatest = most likely to be remembered five hundred years hence.
>>I must admit that that makes many of my personal favorites not 
>>that great.  I make no comment on Nietzche except to remark that 
>>he was no Immanuel Kant.  Interpret that cryptic remark as you 
>>please.

>Some people have appended that remark, that Nietzche was no Kant,
>with "thankfully." I haven't read enough of either to comment, although
>everyone tells me I should read Nietzche.

I would have to say that the "greatest philosopher" title would have to
go to Plato since the whole enterprise of philosophy was essentially
defined by him.  Although he got most of his answers wrong, he did 
definitively identify what the important questions are.  I think it
was Descartes who said that "All philosophy is just a footnote to Plato."

If I were to choose which philosopher made the most important advances
in human knowledge over his lifetime, that's simple...it is Aristotle.
This is so much the case that many simply refer to him as "the philosopher".

Regarding Nietzsche, he's one of the most entertaining, although since his
ideas were so fragmented (and since his life was cut short) it is doubtful
that his influence as a philosopher is likely to be very extensive 500 years
from now.  They'll probably still be reading him in 500 years though.

As for "modern" philosophers, I would have to say that Kant was the most
influential since he had such a strong influence on almost everyone who
came after him (and unfortunately, they maintained his errors and 
amplified them over time).

I would say that the most influential "american" philosopher would have to
be Dewey.

But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in
500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect
was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.

--Brian

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62405
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <2534@tdbunews.teradata.COM| swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com writes:
|
|No if you're Fred Hoyle.  He rejects the Big Bang, and proposes an infinitely
|old universe (*really*), so in his model life *always* starts on a given planet
|by seeding from outer space - there has *always* been life somewhere.
|
Didn't Fred Hoyle abandon the steady state theory?

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62406
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?

In article <1sti5kINNoq4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist
>>gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing
>>forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the
>>creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for
>>pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large 
>>active boneless creatures on land.
>
>Hydraulics can make rigid tubes.  No energy required just for
>support.  Hydraulics also allow a creature to produce large
>forces with weak muscles, using the principle of a hydraulic jack
>rather than a lever.

This is one of those "yes, but" things. It's true that a hydraulically
pressurized tube can be somewhat more rigid than an unpressurized tube,
but even at 2000 PSI levels a hydraulic hose will bend rather easily,
though it's straight-on compressive strength is high, and it's torsional 
resistance increase is practically nil. On the other grasping member, 
there's no doubt that hydraulic "leverage" exists in nature. Tree roots 
are an example. Given time they can shatter concrete as osmotic pressure
increases.

>>It's interesting to note that, on
>>land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects
>>having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a 
>>stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures 
>
>Kangaroos are 3-legged.  The specific number of limbs a creature has is
>an accident of evolution, it is hard to make changes in some
>structures.  The panda has a thumb plus as many fingers as its
>ancestors (five?) on each hand, but the thumb is a modified wristbone
>rather than a modified finger, and extra fingers are much more common
>than extra limbs, especially fully-functional ones.

Kangaroos 3-limbed? I don't think so. If you take the view that the
tail is a limb, then monkeys and kangaroos are 5-limbed. I think the
tail is a different kind of structure, grossly enlarged in the case
of the kangaroo, but primarily still an instrument of balance rather
than locomotion. I don't know much about panda "thumbs", so I'll ask
is it opposable?

>>Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would
>>seem to dictate that active complex creatures  stay in a size range
>>similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens
>>seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant.
>
>Why can't a lemur or a brontosaurus* be intelligent?
>
>[*Yes, I know that the brontosaurus is a mythical beast produced by
>putting the head of another dinosaur on an apatosaurus, but so far
>space aliens are also mythical.]

Well I won't say flat out that they can't be intelligent, but I'll
bring a couple of lines of argument to bear to try to show why I
don't think it's likely. First let me say that when I say "intelligent"
I mean complex behaviors in response to novel situations on a level
with, or greater than, human tool use and tool building. IE assuming
suitable manipulators are present on the creature to allow it to alter 
it's enviroment in a planned way, it will do so. That's certainly not
a universal or complete definition of intelligence, but it will suffice
for a putative technological alien.

Now no one knows exactly what makes a brain capable of thought, but
it's generally accepted that one of the criteria is a certain level
of complexity. This is generally determined by the number of neuron
cells, and their interconnections. So a creature the size of a lemur
wouldn't have enough neurons to support complex thought. This argument
is considerably less clear in the case of the dinosaur. There's room
for a large brain, though no indication that one ever developed. One
reason this may be true is neuronic speed. The electrochemical messages 
that trigger neurons require time to propagate. This makes it difficult
for a highly complex central brain to coordinate the movements of very
large creatures. So there's little selection pressure for such brains.
Instead, a simpler distributed network evolves. This doesn't rule out
intelligent dinosaurs, but it points in that direction.

Then there are the thermodynamic arguments. A tiny creature like the
lemur needs to eat frequently because it's internal heat is rapidly
lost due to it's high surface to volume ratio. I contend that a creature
that must spend most of it's time and energy feeding won't have the time
to develop and exercise intelligence. That argument may be somewhat weak.
The dinosaur's problem is the reverse, it must moderate it's heat production 
because it's high volume to surface ratio makes it tend to retain waste heat. 
I'm assuming that a certain temperature range is optimal for chemical
reactivity reasons for productive neuron function. So creatures would
tend to need to maintain a regulated temperature in a range near that
of humans if they are carbon based. That tends to rule out cold blooded
creatures as potential homes of intelligence. Some people contend that
some of the dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. But for a creature
the size of a brontosaur, it's activity levels would have to be restrained
or it would be prone to generate an internal steam explosion from the
waste heat. Whales are similar size, but they can reject heat to the
ocean, a much more efficient sink than air. I suspect that for intelligence
to manifest itself, a certain degree of activity in interacting with the
environment is necessary. IE monkey curiousity. I doubt a large dinosaur
would be capable of that much activity.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62407
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

In article <1993May13.184233.6060@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since
>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those
>on the ship and those who invested in it.  If a plane or spacecraft
>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it
>land in an inappropriate place.


Considering the magnitude of loss of life in both the Moro Castle
and Titanic disasters,  I can't believe you can be so blithe
there fred.

Besides if a LNG tanker breaks up in a close harbor, you can kiss
off quite a lot of population.  same thing for any chemical
tankers.

I know the coast guard makes  mandatory safety equipment
checks on all watercraft.  they use this as an excuse to
make narcotics  searches, without warrants.

I suspect, that  commercial craft need a certificate at least similiar
in scope to an air worthiness certificate from the DOT.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62408
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC

In article <stephens.737384293@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
|had.'  and went on to mention that in aviation if you are found
|with an adjustable spanner in your tool box you can be fired. An
|adjustable spanner by trying to fit all nuts, fits none of them
|properly, and so damages all of them. In the demanding environment of
|the air the adjustable wrench is rightly considered a lethal instrument.


Dave,

	What i recall from air craft maintence.  Torqque  and safety
wires or cotters  were more important, then if some bolt
face were nicked up.  If it was in bad shape you replaced it
with another $30,  aircraft grade bolt.  I can see adjustable spanners
eating up profit,  but lives?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62409
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: SDIO kaput!


Not to mention how those those liberal presidents, Nixon, Ford,
Reagan, Bush.   did nothing to support  true commercial space
activities.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62410
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Near Miss Asteroids (Q)


TRry the SKywatch project in  Arizona.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62411
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73w0t.FpH@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:
>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>us loathe it.

It's a moot point: Step out of your door go _anywhere_ (except possibly
your mailbox). You will be "subject to some ad agency's 'poor taste'"
 
>...I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
>by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
>to an astronomer like Sagan.

While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
they are extremely bright.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62412
From: dempsey@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1t30fu$str@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

> In article <1993May14.163044.1@stsci.edu> dempsey@stsci.edu writes:
>>This is a real world too.  You can't do science like this with out doing
>>politics as well, unfortunately.  Good PR keep the $$ coming in.
>>
> 
> "Do you know what makes rocket ships fly?  Funding, makes them fly.
> No Bucks,  No Buck Rogers" :-)
> 
>

Ok, so you have proven you saw the right stuff.  However, as I said above,
it takes politics and PR to keep the bucks coming.
"No politics, no bucks, no buck rogers."
 
> 
> 	I think you are missing the point.   If an agency has gathered some data
> on something.  and once tax dollars have been spent,  the data is now
> Property of the people of the US government.  The government may
> charge to recover some of the cost,  or they may charge to maintain
> the data,  but they cannot claim the data  is proprietary,  unless it
> is classified national security data.
>

Yes this may be true in the case of the SCIENCE data coming from the spacecraft
and other stuff about the operations.  However, there is still stuff regarding
regular operation that belongs to the company and they have ever legal right
to keeping it theirs.  But this does not mean that everything can or
should be swept under the umbrella of company proprietory data.
 
> I live down the road from NIH.  THey run studies all the time.
> I can go into their  library  and  photocoppy all the raw data from
> any study thev'e  done.   Just bring a roll of quarters.
>

You can do the same here...you just have to wait a year.
 
> I'm not saying you guys don't have internal rules,  but they are
> not supported by US law.
>

Safeguard internal company data are indeed supported by US law.  
 
-Dempsey


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62413
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <1t4pkc$ovf@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
>companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
>sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
>looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By 
the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas, 
the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

The night sky on a Lunar backpacking trip would still be very 
pristine... 

There's always been a problem of having to get 
away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
"wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of 
growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
not save your view of the night sky, because by the time 
such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
the stars...

>Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
>if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...
 
An ad on a moon of Jupiter would be rather pointless, since you need
a telescope to see them. However, I'd love to see them get all
the publicity they could from underwritting the "Coca Cola Io
Orbital Mapping Probe."  

>...Microscum will want to
>name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.

They already can, to some extent: The IAU allows names derived from
sponsors or patrons of scientific research. If Microscum donates
money to a university astronomy program, one of the galactic 
astronomers could easily get a newly discovered galaxy named after
them.
  
                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62414
From: trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

In <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes:

>In article <1993May12.220831.8619@leland.Stanford.EDU> etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes:
>>Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
>>about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
>>going on in the space community, he seems to know it. 
>>	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek:
>>	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you?
>>	1) Do you ever eat or sleep?
>>	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research? 
>>	Or do you just use an account there?
>>Just curious.

>My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer 
>some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.

well, IMHO (and i am just a nobody net.user) henry spencer is to
sci.* as kibo is to alt.* and rec.*....

....but i could be wrong...(did anybody mention the illuminati)

kitten
--

***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten       /\ /\  a.k.a. barbara ann
trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu            {=.=}
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"    ~
"summmmmmmmmmmertimmmmmmmmmme....and the livin' is easy" gg


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62415
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <1993May16.145159.3100@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <1t4pkc$ovf@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
   >If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
   >companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
   >sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
   >looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

   Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By 
   the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas, 
   the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
   trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
   5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
   same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
   to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

This is nonsense.  Its like saying that by the time commercials
on television become commonplace every citizen will have their own
hour long nationally broadcast TV program.

   There's always been a problem of having to get 
   away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
   scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
   of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
   or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
   on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
   "wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
   billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of 
   growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
   not save your view of the night sky, because by the time 
   such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
   finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
   the stars...

The rest of your post is strange mishmash of "its already really bad"
and "it doesn't really matter if it gets worse."  You should try to
figure out what you are really arguing for.  (Kneejerk anti-environ-
mentalism?)

-david

P.S.  A passing sattelite does not have the same effect on visible
light astronomy as an object as bright as the full moon.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62416
From: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay)
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>|>Report called it The Science of Order, but that's probably pomposity.

>|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration
>|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important
>|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does
>|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract
>|deductive field.

>How do you do experiments in mathematics?
Well ...
Have a look at a new journal: Journal of Experimental Mathematics
It has several Fields medallists on its editorial board.
You want to knwo more?
Try Klaus Peters in Boston or David Epstein at Warwick .

-- 
Deep ideas are simple.
                      Odd groups are even.
                                           Even simples are not.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62417
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

Others said:
# >Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
# >if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...

This reminds me of the old Arthur C. Clarke story about the Coca Cola
ad stashed inside an experiment.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62418
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:

>But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in
>500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect
>was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.

1. Please take this out of sci.space.

2. Ayn Rand was not only born in Russia, but educated there. A lot
of her philosophy reflects not only a European education but a 
reaction against certian events in Russia while she lived there.
I've heard that to the extent there is a division of modern philosophy
between the "Continental" and British/American schools, Rand belongs in
the former in terms of methodology et al, even though she was trying to
say things that would belong in the latter school.

I.e. she was trapped in the language of Kant and Hegel, even though
she was trying to say (at times) much different things.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62419
From: jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: STS-57 inclination?

From article <1993May14.023220.1@vax1.tcd.ie>, by apryan@vax1.tcd.ie:
>>          Primary payload: Spacehab 1 EURECA 1-R   Inclination: 57 degrees
> I have seen elsewhere that inclination is 28 degrees. 
> Which is correct?

Hmmm... Atlantis left Eureca in a 28 degree orbit. Retrieving it is
going to be *REALLY* fun if they fly to 57 degrees. Torque that 
Canadarm! :-)

 - Jonathan


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62420
From: ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

Are you guys talking about the Soviet "shuttle"?  It's not "Soyuz",
it's called "Buran" which means "snow storm."

(At least that's what they call it on Russian TV).


-- 
Gavin Helf
UC Berkeley Political Science
Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies
ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62425
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment

In article <C71EnF.HJM@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993May13.100935.21187@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration
>|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important
>|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does
>|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract
>|deductive field.
>
>How do you do experiments in mathematics?

Nowadays, usually with a computer. No theory predicted the numeric 
discoveries listed above. No one can yet write an algorithm that will
predict the precise behavior of any of these at any precise level of
their evolution. So it remains for experimenters to gather data on their
behavior.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62426
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott


[Space ad proposed]

This is undoubtedly the sickest thing to come down the marketing pipe
in years, and the best reason for resurrecting the "Star Wars" killer
satellite system.

Dan


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62427
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes:
>In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the
>I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
>I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
>richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
>in poor taste.

Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
of wealth would help them ...

Dan



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62428
From: richard@cs.arizona.edu (Richard J Shank)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.


I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky --

		THIS SPACE FOR RENT



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62429
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <C73w0t.FpH@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:
>>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>>us loathe it.

>While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)

>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

Tell that to the people who run the 10-meter Keck telescope, or the 
astronomers and engineers working on the Gemini twin 8-meter telescope
project.  It took 7 years to build Keck I and now they are building
Keck II.  According to the December 1992 Sky & Telescope, "This
second 10-meter eye will convert the facility into a binocular telescope
with double the light-gathering power and the ability to resolve
the headlights of a car some 25,000 kilometers away."   Japan's 8.3-meter
Subaru telescope will soon join Keck on Mauna Kea.  All these telescopes
will work in the infrared, yes, but they are _visible light_ telescopes!

And haven't you heard anything about adaptive optics?  A lot of research
was done with "Star Wars" funding, and some is now being shared with
astronomers.  This shows great promise.  Soon, probably within a few
years, even the largest telescopes will be able to resolve to their 
theoretical limit _despite_ the distortions of the atmosphere.

To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
are the dying fields.

George Krumins
-- 
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding 
                                  / /\ \ 
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62448
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

stange@meena.cc.uregina.ca writes:

>Phil, your point is well taken.  It is still a sad idea.

I'm worried by the concern about it though, for a number of reasons
that have nothing to do with Space Advertising (which for a number of
reasons is probably doomed to fail on financial grounds).

(And I've been reading and (and writing) this thread since way
back when it was only on sci.space).

For starters, I don't think the piece of light-pollution apparatus
would be as bright as the full moon. _That_ seems to me to be a bit
of propaganda on the part of opponents, or wishful thinking on the
part of proponents.

Second, this charge of ruining the night sky permanently has been
levelled against other projects, that either 1) don't increace light
pollution significantly, or 2) increace light pollution only over the
target area.

You may or may not recognize #1 as being Solar Power Sattelites.
I think it was Josh Hopkins who actually did the math, showing that
SPS's weren't that bright after all, ending some two months of frenzied
opposition on the part of dark-sky activists and various other types.

#2 is mainly projects like the orbiting mirror the CIS tested
recently.  While slightly more worrisome, I'd like to point out that
any significant scattering of light outside the target area for one of
these mirrors would be wasted as far as the project would be
concerned, and something any project like that would work against
anyway. And given some of the likely targets, I don't think there's
going to be much of an outcry from the inhabitants. There is too much
dark sky in the northern CIS during the winter, and I doubt you'll find
many activists in Murmansk demanding the "natural" sky back. If anything,
he'll probably be inside, stripped buck naked in front of the UV lamp,
making sure he'll get enough vitamin D for the "day."

The mirror experiments aren't something they're doing for crass
advertising. They think that if they can build one, it'll be one of
those things people in the affected areas will think they couldn't
have lived without before. And I doubt anyone's going to really be
able to convince them to stop.


--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62449
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:

>We're talking about an orbiting ad here, not some little point
>of light that puts a streak or two on a photograph.  It should have been
>clear that anything used for advertisement is going to be a bit larger than
>a point source.  Even if this was not clear there's a previous post on this
>topic that makes it clear:

>----
>Message-ID: <FOX.93May15223005@graphics.nyu.edu>
>Sender: notes@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Notes Person)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: graphics.cs.nyu.edu
>Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
>Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 03:30:05 GMT
>Lines: 132

>In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
>section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
>in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
>reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
>						     ^^ ^^^^^
>and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
>^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^

From the description I've read, it's prob. only going to be
as bright as Jupiter. Anything else is probably hype from the
opponents or wishful thinking from the sponsors.

If we could do something as bright as the full moon that soon,
that cheap, the CIS would have done it already.


--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62450
From: tony2@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (gozdz,antoni s)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

In article <C74rAn.4qA@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin) writes:
>
>[Space ad proposed]
>
>This is undoubtedly the sickest thing to come down the marketing pipe
>in years, and the best reason for resurrecting the "Star Wars" killer
>satellite system.
>
>Dan
>

Why don't you activist guys cut misc.invest out of this thread?
They didn't offer any shares for sale yet...

Tony
tony2@cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62451
From: tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C74rGL.4u7@ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan
Herrin) writes:
[deleted]
>Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
>advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
>of wealth would help them ...
>
>Dan
>

Not to flame (REALLY), but thats an abominable viewpoint (while were
on the subject of abominations).  If we followed the "redistiribution
of wealth" (and by the way, ist that what Clinto and the Democrats are
trying to do...), EVERYONE would starve in short order.  Not only is
it impossoble to organize a fair distribution that depends on every
(wo)man's altruism (can you say black market under communisim
anyone?), but the current methods of resource production are entirely
energy dependant.  There are not enough sources of cheap capital
(aside from human capital) to allow us to stop looking at space a an
excellent source of materials and realestate.  More directly, perhaps
you mioght consider the fact that BILLIONS are spent by TV companies,
and their sponsors, (ABC, NBC, CBS...) on the SUPERBOWL, the OLYMPICS,
and even on monday night baseball games.  Perhaps we should boycott
those games?  If DC-X and company get finished, and there is a market
for it, those "abominable" space will probably be much more cost
effective for the companies, and those starving children.  More people
buy products, the company hires more workers, end result fewer
children die of starvation.

-- 

---------=======================================================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or tfv0@lehigh.edu
Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!
"Never before have we owed so little to so many..."- R.T.Folk
"One must not confuse John Dunne's famous quote `No man is an Island' with
 New York Telephone's `We're all connected'" - Dad

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62452
From: tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
[deleted]
>To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
>pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
>matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
>are the dying fields.
>
>George Krumins
>-- 
[deleted]
Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy
computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the
defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see
those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely
reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it?

The way I see it (and please, astromomers give me a swift net-kick in
the butt if i'm out of the ball park), the astromers are making the
best of limited possiblities, there's only one hubble, and the shuttle
makes another in the near future a non-thought.  Perhaps those self
same billboards could have small optical receptors of a limited kind
mounted on the reverse sides of the mirror's (if that is what is used)
and then the whole thing becomes a giant array telescope...

-- 

---------=======================================================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or tfv0@lehigh.edu
Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!
"Never before have we owed so little to so many..."- R.T.Folk
"One must not confuse John Dunne's famous quote `No man is an Island' with
 New York Telephone's `We're all connected'" - Dad

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62453
From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The

Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.
Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
anyway.  Also, scopes in low orbit (like Hubble) can only observe things
continuously for ~45 minutes at a time, which can be a serious
limitation.

>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the

I sure as hell does if the 'point of light' is half a degree in extent
and as bright as the moon.  Have you ever noticed how much brighter the
night sky is on a moonlit night?


>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)

Existing satellites *are* points of light, but an advertising sign that
appeared as a point would be useless, so I rather think these will
appear larger than a 'typical' satellite.  Also, satellite tracks *are*
ruining lots of plates in the current Palomar Sky Survey.
>
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

What deparment are you in anyway, Philosophy?  You obviously are not
qualified to speak about astronomy...

--Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
R. Lee Hawkins	 	    			lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu
Department of Astronomy     		        lhawkins@lucy.wellesley.edu
Whitin Observatory         		      	    
Wellesley College				Ph. 617-283-2708
Wellesley, MA 02181				FAX 617-283-3642
________________________________________________________________________________



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62454
From: Dan Gaubatz <dgaubat1@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control
everything.  I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other
kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably
the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are 
not in fact creaters of the universe.  Annoying little species, aren't we?


**********
Dan Gaubatz (dgaubat1@cc.swarthmore.edu)
Itty Bitty Programmer Guy
The Geometry Forum
Swarthmore College

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62455
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][) writes:

>In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
>[deleted]
>>To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
>>pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
>>matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
>>are the dying fields.
>>-- 
>[deleted]
>Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy
>computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the
>defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see
>those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely
>reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it?
>[deleted]

The main effect of the spherical aberration problems with the
primary mirror was to drive the computer engineers to develop the image
processing software that much faster. When they use the _same_ deconvolution 
software on the images from the fixed Hubble, be ready for some 
incredible results!  There is every reason to believe that the results will 
_exceed_ the original specs by a fair margin.  

Adaptive optics is a combination of hardware and software.  It works 
realtime, not after the fact, as is the case with Hubble.  You might be
interested to know this technology has made it to the amateur market, in
the form of the AO-2 Adaptive Optics System.  Starting on page 52 of the 
April, 1993 Sky & Telescope is a three page review of this new product.
It lists for $1,290.  The article states: "The AO-2 Adaptive Optics System 
comes in a handy soft-plastic case that a three-year-old could carry 
around."  Even though this device is really only good for the brightest
objects, "it could cope with image movements of up to 0.8 millimeter
in the telescope's focal plane."  Now just imagine how well this infant 
technology will do in a few years, especially in a dedicated system that 
has hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many man-hours invested in its
development.

George Krumins
-- 
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding 
                                  / /\ \ 
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62474
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 1993 14:31:20 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
fc> Modern, 
fc> ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
fc> orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
fc> opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
fc> driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
fc> telescopes. 

 Here's one radio astronomer quite concerned about 
 radio-frequency interference from portable telephones, etc.


--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62475
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 1993 05:48:59 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:

fc> In article <1993May17.021717.26111@olaf.wellesley.edu> lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The

>Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
>ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.

fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big, 
fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less 
fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
fc> to me...

 That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy 
 didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it
 didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think 
 X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.
 I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in 
 general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)
 observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost 
 no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.

 Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only 
 had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more
 instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has
 resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of 
 total astronomical work.


>Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
>as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
>and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
>anyway.

fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter 
fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.

 Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using 
 adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared 
 observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.

 And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution, 
 from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the 
 selling points of HST).





--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62476
From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter J Card)
Subject: Re: Over zealous shuttle critics

We`ve had the the Great Western, the [ dunno ] and the Great Northern
postulated as Brunel`s masterpiece. Keep boxing the compass chaps, you`ll
get round to it eventually.

The Great Western was a highly successful transatlantic mail ship,
with hybrid sail and steam propulsion. The Great Eastern, which broke
the 'Little Giant' financially and otherwise, was a revolutionary leap
forward in ship design. A thirty thousand ton all steel vessel, with
primary steam propulsion, it was at the time easily the biggest ocean
going vessel ever built. Brunel took advantage of the fact that cargo
and / or fuel capacity rose with the cube of scale, while drag rose
with the square, so a really big ship could steam thousands of miles
without coaling.

Unfortunately, there was no real market for such a beast at the time,
and it was eventually sold off at scrap values. As another poster
said, it then went on to a successful career as a telegraph cable
laying ship. It was in fact the only ship of its day capable of laying
a transatlantic cable in one go, with the endurance and capacity to
carry the huge reel all the way, and the manoeuverabilty to dredge for
defective sections. See Arthur C Clarke`s book "How the World was One"
[ I think that`s right ]

If that`s how the Shuttle goes down in history, as a technical triumph
and a financial disaster for the builder, it would not be entirely
ignoble, but I doubt if history will be so charitable.  Its true the
Shuttle can do things no other launch system can do, but are they
worth doing? With low cost access to space, you could have an
affordable space station for doing shuttle-like extended manned
missions. As it is, the shuttle is not so much a space-truck as a
space-RV, ( only not so cheap to run :-( )
-- 
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366 
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62477
From: raptor!rlove (Robert B. Love )
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL

In article <1so442$3qm@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat)  
writes:
> >Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC)
> 
> 
> Now is that an aptly named person or what?
When I went thru all the spinning chair tests at JSC the PhD in charge 
was Milt Reshke but the technician who strapped me in and, on occasion,
inserted the "probe" (needle) was named Bev Bloodworth.


Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62478
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C760Dv.K75@agora.rain.com> jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>If anybody has a strong claim to control of the  the night sky, it is 
>astronomers.  Check out the common law.  In the days when wild lands
>weren't scarce, pioneers laid claim to the land by putting it to
>use, eg clearing and growing a crop.  Even trespassers can lay claim to 
>the right of passage if if they've done it for long enough and the
>owners have not complained or taken steps to stop them.  Usage
>begets property rights.
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it. 
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
>Another consequence of their ownership is that they are free to sell
>it.  Now, astronomers need money for their work.  If light
>polluting billboards and mirrors go up, they will need even
>more money to buy extra image processing equipment, filters,
>space telescopes etc. to get around the problem.
>
>So, as long as we can define who "astronomers" are (eg do
>"they" include amateur astronomers?  Nature lovers?)
>we can set up a system of voluntary consensus to solve this
>dispute, instead invoking bans, regulations, etc. enforced
>by bribed politicians at the point of a gun (why do folks always
>think of that sordid solution, "we ought to pass a law", to
>solve problems first instead of as a last resort when other
>methods have failed?)
>
[Stuff deleted]
>  This proposal certainly needs work, but how about working on 
>these kind of ideas first before writing "there ought to be a law" 
>letters to our Congresscritters: let's give noncoercive consensus, via 
>the free market, a chance to solve this problem.
>
>Jim Hart
>jhart@agora.rain.com

Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on
earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the
night sky without `coercion'.   Remember that not every nation
follows the English common law.   In most countries, for most of
history, it was probably true that the rulers `owned' everything
not explicitly owned by individuals.   Even in North America,
where by the principle enunciated, the aboriginal inhabitants should
have owned everything, when new arrivals wanted to use land
and resources, they just took it over.  In case Mr. Hart hasn't noticed,
there is currently a brutal war going on in Bosnia about who owns what.
Of course, if some friendly super power were to give an international
astronomy organization some anti-satelite missiles and also agree
to defend it if attacked, such a proposal might work, but it
would hardly be non-coercive.

Some of us nutty environmentalists think it might make sense first
to try to mobilize public opinion against advertising in space
and also to use governmental actions (like taxing power, for example)
to discourage them.   This of course would be too coercive for
Mr. Hart.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62479
From: england@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad)
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games

Hello netters,

   I'm new to this board and I thought this might be the best place
for my post.  I have a question regarding satellite technology seen
in the movie Patriot Games.  In the movies, the CIA utilizes its
orbitting sats to pinpoint a specific terrorist camp in N Africa.
The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are
capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles.  My
question is this:  The camp in question was taken out by the
British SAS.  And while the SAS was in action, the CIA team was
watching in the warroom back in Langley, VA.  The action of the SAS
was clear and appeared to be relayed via a sat.  The action was at
night and the photography appeared to be an x-ray type.  That is,
one could see the action within the tents/structures of the camp.
Does such techology exist and what is it's nature?  i.e., UV, IR,
x-ray, etc.

PS  Who wrote the book Patriot Games?

Mad Vlad

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62480
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C760Dv.K75@agora.rain.com> jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it.  If they don't complain now against scenic trespassers
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
   Is English (American, Canadian, etc.) common law recognized as
legally binding under international law?  After all, we're talking about
something that by its very nature isn't limited to the territory of one
nation.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62481
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <geoffmC7508L.F1K@netcom.com>, geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes:
|> In article <C74rGL.4u7@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
|> >advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
|> >of wealth would help them ...
|> 
|> 
|> This is specious emotionalism.  Commercial enterprises typically don't
|> spend money on starving children (or other world problems) anyway, at
|> least not in excess of whatever minimum amount is required for lip-
|> service and PR purposes.  Precisely where would you place the threshold
|> beyond which advertising spending is deemed "abominable," and why?

Yes!  Just take money from the profitable commercial enterprises
and give it to the government to "redistribute."  Government is so much
more efficient, trustworthy, and noble than self-serving businesses. :)

Let's nip this redistributionist ignorance in the bud.  If it were not
for commercial enterprises, the whole world would be starving.

Roger Collins

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62614
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Subject: Re: Questions for KC-135 veterans

>>if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
>>side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
>>hard disk....
> 
>Hmm.  I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might
>make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways
>force on the head.  Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you
>were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might
>even be a problem for new drives.


well it seemed to work for the Mac II installation I was talking about.
Oh yeah there is something I forgot to mention :
even though you're not suppposed to have water around, there IS
 some condenstion d
dripping from the roof of the plane make sure that your hardware is covered.
Make also sure that your keyboards are protected from the two-phase flow
coming out of sick people. It happened to us.....

Good luck.


Igor Carron
Texas A&M University



Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62615
From: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton)
Subject: Re: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote

In article <1993May14.200217.3044@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
> 
> A staffer just told me an interesting story about DC-X. An Air Force
> costing team just looked at the DC-X (now called the DC-X1 BTW) and
> gave an estimate on how much it would cost the Air Force to build it.
> It cost SDIO $70M to build and it would cost the USAF:
> 
> 
> 
>         $320 million or four and a half times as much.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the cost difference could be
accounted for by the AF's requirement for superfluous 2167 documentation, 5
or 6 huge requirements and design reviews, travel expenses flying personnel
around to meetings, and over specifying the hardware. I doubt that the
actual fabrication cost in materials and labor would be very different from
SDIO's costs.

Of course, this is my cynical opinion based on years of watching the
government procurement process try to cover up a lack of creativity and
innovation with reams of documentation. ;)

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62616
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Billsats

Jeffrey L. Cook sez;
>>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
>>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
>>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
>>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, people
>>are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would so
>>vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.

Lazlo Nibble sez;
>Buying Lichtenstein and paving it over with ground glass would also
>"demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism", but that doesn't make it
>a particularly attractive idea.  Is that what this country has been reduced
>to?  The planetary equivalent of a guy who gets his penis out at parties?

Actually, paving ground glass over Lichtenstein wouldn't demonstrate the
strength of Western Capitalism, since it's strength depends on use of
the mind and materials in the fulfillment of needs and desires.  Mind you,
I'm not saying *no-one* would benefit from glassed-over land, but I don't
think anyone would actually pay for it, unlike the (potential) billsats.

I don't quite follow you on the part about someone exposing their genitals
at parties, but I got a chuckle from it anyway.  And I thought I had some
strange friends :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62708
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

> According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard"
> will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small
> and visually unimportant... 
> 
>   Anyway, he suggested that the
> visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet
> at 45k feet (12km) altitude.

----------

Are you sure he didn't tailor his comments according to what he guessed
you wanted to hear?  In other words, LIE?  Think about it - what good 
would a billboard do for an advertiser if nobody can see it?  Who would
advertise, telescope companies?  Pretty narrow audience here.

Newsgroup: sci.space
document_id: 62709
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
: While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
: because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
: ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
: orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
: opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
: driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
: telescopes.

Hardly.  The Keck telescope in Hawaii has taken its first pictures; they're
nearly as good as Hubble for a tiny fraction of the cost.

: In any case, a bright point of light passing through
: the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
: thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
: might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
: they are extremely bright.)

I believe that this orbiting space junk will be FAR brighter still;
more like the full moon.  The moon upsets deep-sky observation all
over the sky (and not just looking at it) because of scattered light.

This is a known problem, but of course two weeks out of every four are
OK.  What happens when this billboard circles every 90 minutes?  What
would be a good time then?

:                                              Frank Crary
:                                              CU Boulder

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59497
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise

In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>> physics.
>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>> string theory?
>
>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>including the omni-present "black holes."
>
>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
no properties."
"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla

----
 ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
----

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59846
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 06/15 - Constants and Equations

Archive-name: space/constants
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:04 $

CONSTANTS AND EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATIONS

    This list was originally compiled by Dale Greer. Additions would be
    appreciated.

    Numbers in parentheses are approximations that will serve for most
    blue-skying purposes.

    Unix systems provide the 'units' program, useful in converting
    between different systems (metric/English, etc.)

    NUMBERS

	7726 m/s	 (8000)  -- Earth orbital velocity at 300 km altitude
	3075 m/s	 (3000)  -- Earth orbital velocity at 35786 km (geosync)
	6371 km		 (6400)  -- Mean radius of Earth
	6378 km		 (6400)  -- Equatorial radius of Earth
	1738 km		 (1700)  -- Mean radius of Moon
	5.974e24 kg	 (6e24)  -- Mass of Earth
	7.348e22 kg	 (7e22)  -- Mass of Moon
	1.989e30 kg	 (2e30)  -- Mass of Sun
	3.986e14 m^3/s^2 (4e14)  -- Gravitational constant times mass of Earth
	4.903e12 m^3/s^2 (5e12)  -- Gravitational constant times mass of Moon
	1.327e20 m^3/s^2 (13e19) -- Gravitational constant times mass of Sun
	384401 km	 ( 4e5)  -- Mean Earth-Moon distance
	1.496e11 m	 (15e10) -- Mean Earth-Sun distance (Astronomical Unit)

	1 megaton (MT) TNT = about 4.2e15 J or the energy equivalent of
	about .05 kg (50 gm) of matter. Ref: J.R Williams, "The Energy Level
	of Things", Air Force Special Weapons Center (ARDC), Kirtland Air
	Force Base, New Mexico, 1963. Also see "The Effects of Nuclear
	Weapons", compiled by S. Glasstone and P.J. Dolan, published by the
	US Department of Defense (obtain from the GPO).

    EQUATIONS

	Where d is distance, v is velocity, a is acceleration, t is time.
	Additional more specialized equations are available from:

	    ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/MoreEquations


	For constant acceleration
	    d = d0 + vt + .5at^2
	    v = v0 + at
	  v^2 = 2ad

	Acceleration on a cylinder (space colony, etc.) of radius r and
	    rotation period t:

	    a = 4 pi**2 r / t^2

	For circular Keplerian orbits where:
	    Vc	 = velocity of a circular orbit
	    Vesc = escape velocity
	    M	 = Total mass of orbiting and orbited bodies
	    G	 = Gravitational constant (defined below)
	    u	 = G * M (can be measured much more accurately than G or M)
	    K	 = -G * M / 2 / a
	    r	 = radius of orbit (measured from center of mass of system)
	    V	 = orbital velocity
	    P	 = orbital period
	    a	 = semimajor axis of orbit

	    Vc	 = sqrt(M * G / r)
	    Vesc = sqrt(2 * M * G / r) = sqrt(2) * Vc
	    V^2  = u/a
	    P	 = 2 pi/(Sqrt(u/a^3))
	    K	 = 1/2 V**2 - G * M / r (conservation of energy)

	    The period of an eccentric orbit is the same as the period
	       of a circular orbit with the same semi-major axis.

	Change in velocity required for a plane change of angle phi in a
	circular orbit:

	    delta V = 2 sqrt(GM/r) sin (phi/2)

	Energy to put mass m into a circular orbit (ignores rotational
	velocity, which reduces the energy a bit).

	    GMm (1/Re - 1/2Rcirc)
	    Re = radius of the earth
	    Rcirc = radius of the circular orbit.

	Classical rocket equation, where
	    dv	= change in velocity
	    Isp = specific impulse of engine
	    Ve	= exhaust velocity
	    x	= reaction mass
	    m1	= rocket mass excluding reaction mass
	    g	= 9.80665 m / s^2

	    Ve	= Isp * g
	    dv	= Ve * ln((m1 + x) / m1)
		= Ve * ln((final mass) / (initial mass))

	Relativistic rocket equation (constant acceleration)

	    t (unaccelerated) = c/a * sinh(a*t/c)
	    d = c**2/a * (cosh(a*t/c) - 1)
	    v = c * tanh(a*t/c)

	Relativistic rocket with exhaust velocity Ve and mass ratio MR:

	    at/c = Ve/c * ln(MR), or

	    t (unaccelerated) = c/a * sinh(Ve/c * ln(MR))
	    d = c**2/a * (cosh(Ve/C * ln(MR)) - 1)
	    v = c * tanh(Ve/C * ln(MR))

	Converting from parallax to distance:

	    d (in parsecs) = 1 / p (in arc seconds)
	    d (in astronomical units) = 206265 / p

	Miscellaneous
	    f=ma    -- Force is mass times acceleration
	    w=fd    -- Work (energy) is force times distance

	Atmospheric density varies as exp(-mgz/kT) where z is altitude, m is
	molecular weight in kg of air, g is local acceleration of gravity, T
	is temperature, k is Bolztmann's constant. On Earth up to 100 km,

	    d = d0*exp(-z*1.42e-4)

	where d is density, d0 is density at 0km, is approximately true, so

	    d@12km (40000 ft) = d0*.18
	    d@9 km (30000 ft) = d0*.27
	    d@6 km (20000 ft) = d0*.43
	    d@3 km (10000 ft) = d0*.65

		    Atmospheric scale height	Dry lapse rate
		    (in km at emission level)	 (K/km)
		    -------------------------	--------------
	    Earth	    7.5			    9.8
	    Mars	    11			    4.4
	    Venus	    4.9			    10.5
	    Titan	    18			    1.3
	    Jupiter	    19			    2.0
	    Saturn	    37			    0.7
	    Uranus	    24			    0.7
	    Neptune	    21			    0.8
	    Triton	    8			    1

	Titius-Bode Law for approximating planetary distances:

	    R(n) = 0.4 + 0.3 * 2^N Astronomical Units (N = -infinity for
	    Mercury, 0 for Venus, 1 for Earth, etc.)

	    This fits fairly well except for Neptune.

    CONSTANTS

	6.62618e-34 J-s  (7e-34) -- Planck's Constant "h"
	1.054589e-34 J-s (1e-34) -- Planck's Constant / (2 * PI), "h bar"
	1.3807e-23 J/K	(1.4e-23) - Boltzmann's Constant "k"
	5.6697e-8 W/m^2/K (6e-8) -- Stephan-Boltzmann Constant "sigma"
    6.673e-11 N m^2/kg^2 (7e-11) -- Newton's Gravitational Constant "G"
	0.0029 m K	 (3e-3)  -- Wien's Constant "sigma(W)"
	3.827e26 W	 (4e26)  -- Luminosity of Sun
	1370 W / m^2	 (1400)  -- Solar Constant (intensity at 1 AU)
	6.96e8 m	 (7e8)	 -- radius of Sun
	1738 km		 (2e3)	 -- radius of Moon
	299792458 m/s	  (3e8)  -- speed of light in vacuum "c"
	9.46053e15 m	  (1e16) -- light year
	206264.806 AU	  (2e5)  -- \
	3.2616 light years (3)	 --  --> parsec
	3.0856e16 m	 (3e16)  -- /


Black Hole radius (also called Schwarzschild Radius):

	2GM/c^2, where G is Newton's Grav Constant, M is mass of BH,
		c is speed of light

    Things to add (somebody look them up!)
	Basic rocketry numbers & equations
	Aerodynamical stuff
	Energy to put a pound into orbit or accelerate to interstellar
	    velocities.
	Non-circular cases?


NEXT: FAQ #7/15 - Astronomical Mnemonics

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59848
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions

Archive-name: space/controversy
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:06 $

CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS

    These issues periodically come up with much argument and few facts being
    offered. The summaries below attempt to represent the position on which
    much of the net community has settled. Please DON'T bring them up again
    unless there's something truly new to be discussed. The net can't set
    public policy, that's what your representatives are for.


    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS

    Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
    have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
    microfilm.

    The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
    is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
    guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
    have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
    from.

    By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
    the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
    sheet design.


    WHY DATA FROM SPACE MISSIONS ISN'T IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE

    Investigators associated with NASA missions are allowed exclusive access
    for one year after the data is obtained in order to give them an
    opportunity to analyze the data and publish results without being
    "scooped" by people uninvolved in the mission. However, NASA frequently
    releases examples (in non-digital form, e.g. photos) to the public early
    in a mission.


    RISKS OF NUCLEAR (RTG) POWER SOURCES FOR SPACE PROBES

    There has been extensive discussion on this topic sparked by attempts to
    block the Galileo and Ulysses launches on grounds of the plutonium
    thermal sources being dangerous. Numerous studies claim that even in
    worst-case scenarios (shuttle explosion during launch, or accidental
    reentry at interplanetary velocities), the risks are extremely small.
    Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP 19B2
    RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus B weather
    satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered after 5 months
    with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar
    module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG heat source, which
    was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet deep Tonga Trench in
    the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant materials of the RTG are
    expected to prevent release of the fuel for a period of time equal to 10
    half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or about 870 years [DOE 1980].

    To make your own informed judgement, some references you may wish to
    pursue are:

    A good review of the technical facts and issues is given by Daniel
    Salisbury in "Radiation Risk and Planetary Exploration-- The RTG
    Controversy," *Planetary Report*, May-June 1987, pages 3-7. Another good
    article, which also reviews the events preceding Galileo's launch,
    "Showdown at Pad 39-B," by Robert G. Nichols, appeared in the November
    1989 issue of *Ad Astra*. (Both magazines are published by pro-space
    organizations, the Planetary Society and the National Space Society
    respectively.)

    Gordon L Chipman, Jr., "Advanced Space Nuclear Systems" (AAS 82-261), in
    *Developing the Space Frontier*, edited by Albert Naumann and Grover
    Alexander, Univelt, 1983, p. 193-213.

    "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, Health Physics,
    Vol 32 (may) 1977, page 359-379.

    NUS Corporation, Safety Status Report for the Ulysses Mission: Risk
    Analysis (Book 1). Document number is NUS 5235; there is no GPO #;
    published Jan 31, 1990.

    NASA Office of Space Science and Applications, *Final Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)*, (no serial number or
    GPO number, but probably available from NTIS or NASA) June 1990.

    [DOE 1980] U.S.  Department of Energy, *Transuranic Elements in the
    Environment*, Wayne C.  Hanson, editor; DOE Document No.  DOE/TIC-22800;
    Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1980.)


    IMPACT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ON THE OZONE LAYER

    From time to time, claims are made that chemicals released from
    the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are responsible
    for a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer. Studies
    indicate that they in reality have only a minute impact, both in
    absolute terms and relative to other chemical sources. The
    remainder of this item is a response from the author of the quoted
    study, Charles Jackman.

    The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the
    stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was
    organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies.  The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia
    (NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space
    Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and
    Environmental Research, Inc.).  The effort was to look at the effects
    of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere.

    The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine:

       Industrial sources:    300,000,000 kilograms/year
	  Natural sources:     75,000,000 kilograms/year
	  Shuttle sources:	  725,000 kilograms/year

    The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are
    launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the
    total stratospheric chlorine sources.

    The effect on ozone is minimal:  global yearly average total ozone would
    be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability
    associated with volcanic activity and solar flares.

    The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed
    by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally
    averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and
    Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible.  The launch
    schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be
    increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about
    the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons
    do at the present time.

    Theoretical results of this study have been published in _The Space
    Shuttle's Impact on the Stratosphere_, MJ Prather, MM Garcia, AR
    Douglass, CH Jackman, M.K.W. Ko and N.D. Sze, Journal of Geophysical
    Research, 95, 18583-18590, 1990.

    Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch,
    Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
    Greenbelt, MD  20771

    Also see _Chemical Rockets and the Environment_, A McDonald, R Bennett,
    J Hinshaw, and M Barnes, Aerospace America, May 1991.


    HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

    If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
    minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
    breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
    watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
    Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
    experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
    immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
    not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

    Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
    [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
    start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
    lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
    you're dying. The limits are not really known.

    References:

    _The Effect on the Chimpanzee of Rapid Decompression to a Near Vacuum_,
    Alfred G. Koestler ed., NASA CR-329 (Nov 1965).

    _Experimental Animal Decompression to a Near Vacuum Environment_, R.W.
    Bancroft, J.E. Dunn, eds, Report SAM-TR-65-48 (June 1965), USAF School
    of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas.


    HOW THE CHALLENGER ASTRONAUTS DIED

    The Challenger shuttle launch was not destroyed in an explosion. This is
    a well-documented fact; see the Rogers Commission report, for example.
    What looked like an explosion was fuel burning after the external tank
    came apart. The forces on the crew cabin were not sufficient to kill the
    astronauts, never mind destroy their bodies, according to the Kerwin
    team's medical/forensic report.

    The astronauts were killed when the more-or-less intact cabin hit the
    water at circa 200MPH, and their bodies then spent several weeks
    underwater. Their remains were recovered, and after the Kerwin team
    examined them, they were sent off to be buried.


    USING THE SHUTTLE BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT

    You can't use the shuttle orbiter for missions beyond low Earth orbit
    because it can't get there. It is big and heavy and does not carry
    enough fuel, even if you fill part of the cargo bay with tanks.

    Furthermore, it is not particularly sensible to do so, because much of
    that weight is things like wings, which are totally useless except in
    the immediate vicinity of the Earth. The shuttle orbiter is highly
    specialized for travel between Earth's surface and low orbit. Taking it
    higher is enormously costly and wasteful. A much better approach would
    be to use shuttle subsystems to build a specialized high-orbit
    spacecraft.

    [Yet another concise answer by Henry Spencer.]


    THE "FACE ON MARS"

    There really is a big rock on Mars that looks remarkably like a humanoid
    face. It appears in two different frames of Viking Orbiter imagery:
    35A72 (much more facelike in appearance, and the one more often
    published, with the Sun 10 degrees above western horizon) and 70A13
    (with the Sun 27 degrees from the west).

    Science writer Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is
    artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an
    extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the
    resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a
    smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere
    on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't
    know the address) to study the Face.

    The Mars Observer mission will carry an extremely high-resolution
    camera, and better images of the formation will hopefully settle this
    question in a few years. In the meantime, speculation about the Face is
    best carried on in the altnet group alt.alien.visitors, not sci.space or
    sci.astro.

    V. DiPeitro and G. Molenaar, *Unusual Martian Surface Features*, Mars
    Research, P.O. Box 284, Glen Dale, Maryland, USA, 1982. $18 by mail.

    R.R. Pozos, *The Face of Mars*, Chicago Review Press, 1986. [Account of
    an interdisciplinary speculative conference Hoagland organized to
    investigate the Face]

    R.C. Hoagland, *The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever*,
    North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA, 1987. [Elaborate
    discussion of evidence and speculation that formations near the Face
    form a city]

    M.J. Carlotto, "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface
    Features," *Applied Optics*, 27, pp. 1926-1933, 1987. [Extracts
    three-dimensional model for the Face from the 2-D images]

    M.J. Carlotto & M.C. Stein, "A Method of Searching for Artificial
    Objects on Planetary Surfaces," *Journal of the British Interplanetary
    Society*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p.209-216. [Uses a fractal image
    analysis model to guess whether the Face is artificial]

    B. O'Leary, "Analysis of Images of the `Face' on Mars and Possible
    Intelligent Origin," *JBIS*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p. 203-208.
    [Lights Carlotto's model from the two angles and shows it's consistent;
    shows that the Face doesn't look facelike if observed from the surface]


NEXT: FAQ #13/15 - Space activist/interest/research groups & space publications

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59849
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 13/15 - Interest Groups & Publications

Archive-name: space/groups
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:08 $

SPACE ACTIVIST/INTEREST/RESEARCH GROUPS AND SPACE PUBLICATIONS

    GROUPS

    AIA -- Aerospace Industry Association. Professional group, with primary
	membership of major aerospace firms. Headquartered in the DC area.
	Acts as the "voice of the aerospace industry" -- and it's opinions
	are usually backed up by reams of analyses and the reputations of
	the firms in AIA.

	    [address needed]

    AIAA -- American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
	Professional association, with somewhere about 30,000-40,000
	members. 65 local chapters around the country -- largest chapters
	are DC area (3000 members), LA (2100 members), San Francisco (2000
	members), Seattle/NW (1500), Houston (1200) and Orange County
	(1200), plus student chapters. Not a union, but acts to represent
	aviation and space professionals (engineers, managers, financial
	types) nationwide. Holds over 30 conferences a year on space and
	aviation topics publishes technical Journals (Aerospace Journal,
	Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, etc.), technical reference books
	and is _THE_ source on current aerospace state of the art through
	their published papers and proceedings. Also offers continuing
	education classes on aerospace design. Has over 60 technical
	committees, and over 30 committees for industry standards. AIAA acts
	as a professional society -- offers a centralized resume/jobs
	function, provides classes on job search, offers low-cost health and
	life insurance, and lobbies for appropriate legislation (AIAA was
	one of the major organizations pushing for IRAs - Individual
	Retirement Accounts). Very active public policy arm -- works
	directly with the media, congress and government agencies as a
	legislative liaison and clearinghouse for inquiries about aerospace
	technology technical issues. Reasonably non-partisan, in that they
	represent the industry as a whole, and not a single company,
	organization, or viewpoint.

	Membership $70/yr (student memberships are less).

	American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
	The Aerospace Center
	370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW
	Washington, DC 20077-0820
	(202)-646-7400

    AMSAT - develops small satellites (since the 1960s) for a variety of
	uses by amateur radio enthusiasts. Has various publications,
	supplies QuickTrak satellite tracking software for PC/Mac/Amiga etc.

	Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)
	P.O. Box 27
	Washington, DC 20044
	(301)-589-6062

    ASERA - Australian Space Engineering and Research Association. An
	Australian non-profit organisation to coordinate, promote, and
	conduct space R&D projects in Australia, involving both Australian
	and international (primarily university) collaborators. Activities
	include the development of sounding rockets, small satellites
	(especially microsatellites), high-altitude research balloons, and
	appropriate payloads. Provides student projects at all levels, and
	is open to any person or organisation interested in participating.
	Publishes a monthly newsletter and a quarterly technical journal.

	Membership $A100 (dual subscription)
	Subscriptions $A25 (newsletter only) $A50 (journal only)

	ASERA Ltd
	PO Box 184
	Ryde, NSW, Australia, 2112
	email: lindley@syd.dit.csiro.au

    BIS - British Interplanetary Society. Probably the oldest pro-space
	group, BIS publishes two excellent journals: _Spaceflight_, covering
	current space activities, and the _Journal of the BIS_, containing
	technical papers on space activities from near-term space probes to
	interstellar missions. BIS has published a design study for an
	interstellar probe called _Daedalus_.

	British Interplanetary Society
	27/29 South Lambeth Road
	London SW8 1SZ
	ENGLAND

	No dues information available at present.

    ISU - International Space University. ISU is a non-profit international
	graduate-level educational institution dedicated to promoting the
	peaceful exploration and development of space through multi-cultural
	and multi-disciplinary space education and research. For further
	information on ISU's summer session program or Permanent Campus
	activities please send messages to 'information@isu.isunet.edu' or
	contact the ISU Executive Offices at:

	International Space University
	955 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor
	Cambridge, MA 02139
	(617)-354-1987 (phone)
	(617)-354-7666 (fax)

    L-5 Society (defunct). Founded by Keith and Carolyn Henson in 1975 to
	advocate space colonization. Its major success was in preventing US
	participation in the UN "Moon Treaty" in the late 1970s. Merged with
	the National Space Institute in 1987, forming the National Space
	Society.

    NSC - National Space Club. Open for general membership, but not well
	known at all. Primarily comprised of professionals in aerospace
	industry. Acts as information conduit and social gathering group.
	Active in DC, with a chapter in LA. Monthly meetings with invited
	speakers who are "heavy hitters" in the field. Annual "Outlook on
	Space" conference is _the_ definitive source of data on government
	annual planning for space programs. Cheap membership (approx
	$20/yr).

	    [address needed]

    NSS - the National Space Society. NSS is a pro-space group distinguished
	by its network of local chapters. Supports a general agenda of space
	development and man-in-space, including the NASA space station.
	Publishes _Ad Astra_, a monthly glossy magazine, and runs Shuttle
	launch tours and Space Hotline telephone services. A major sponsor
	of the annual space development conference. Associated with
	Spacecause and Spacepac, political lobbying organizations.

	Membership $18 (youth/senior) $35 (regular).

	National Space Society
	Membership Department
	922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
	Washington, DC 20003-2140
	(202)-543-1900

    Planetary Society - founded by Carl Sagan. The largest space advocacy
	group. Publishes _Planetary Report_, a monthly glossy, and has
	supported SETI hardware development financially. Agenda is primarily
	support of space science, recently amended to include an
	international manned mission to Mars.

	The Planetary Society
	65 North Catalina Avenue
	Pasadena, CA 91106

	Membership $35/year.

    SSI - the Space Studies Institute, founded by Dr. Gerard O'Neill.
	Physicist Freeman Dyson took over the Presidency of SSI after
	O'Neill's death in 1992. Publishes _SSI Update_, a bimonthly
	newsletter describing work-in-progress. Conducts a research program
	including mass-drivers, lunar mining processes and simulants,
	composites from lunar materials, solar power satellites. Runs the
	biennial Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing.

	Membership $25/year. Senior Associates ($100/year and up) fund most
	    SSI research.

	Space Studies Institute
	258 Rosedale Road
	PO Box 82
	Princeton, NJ 08540

    SEDS - Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. Founded in
	1980 at MIT and Princeton. SEDS is a chapter-based pro-space
	organization at high schools and universities around the world.
	Entirely student run. Each chapter is independent and coordinates
	its own local activities. Nationally, SEDS runs a scholarship
	competition, design contests, and holds an annual international
	conference and meeting in late summer.

	Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
	MIT Room W20-445
	77 Massachusetts Avenue
	Cambridge, MA  02139
	(617)-253-8897
	email: odyssey@athena.mit.edu

	Dues determined by local chapter.

    SPACECAUSE -  A political lobbying organization and part of the NSS
	Family of Organizations. Publishes a bi-monthly newsletter,
	Spacecause News. Annual dues is $25. Members also receive a discount
	on _The Space Activist's Handbook_. Activities to support pro-space
	legislation include meeting with political leaders and interacting
	with legislative staff. Spacecause primarily operates in the
	legislative process.

	National Office			West Coast Office
	Spacecause			Spacecause
	922 Pennsylvania Ave. SE	3435 Ocean Park Blvd.
	Washington, D.C. 20003		Suite 201-S
	(202)-543-1900			Santa Monica, CA 90405

    SPACEPAC - A political action committee and part of the NSS Family of
	Organizations. Spacepac researches issues, policies, and candidates.
	Each year, updates _The Space Activist's Handbook_. Current Handbook
	price is $25. While Spacepac does not have a membership, it does
	have regional contacts to coordinate local activity. Spacepac
	primarily operates in the election process, contributing money and
	volunteers to pro-space candidates.

	Spacepac
	922 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
	Washington, DC 20003
	(202)-543-1900

    UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION - a public, non-profit organization
	supported by member donations and dedicated to promoting
	international education, understanding and support of space. The
	group hosts an annual conference for teachers and others interested
	in education. Other projects include developing lesson plans that
	use space to teach other basic skills such as reading. Publishes
	"Spacewatch," a monthly B&W glossy magazine of USSF events and
	general space news. Annual dues:

		Charter		$50 ($100 first year)
		Individual	$35
		Teacher		$29
		College student $20
		HS/Jr. High	$10
		Elementary	 $5
		Founder &     $1000+
		    Life Member

	United States Space Foundation
	PO Box 1838
	Colorado Springs, CO 80901
	(719)-550-1000

    WORLD SPACE FOUNDATION - has been designing and building a solar-sail
    spacecraft for longer than any similar group; many JPL employees lend
    their talents to this project. WSF also provides partial funding for the
    Palomar Sky Survey, an extremely successful search for near-Earth
    asteroids. Publishes *Foundation News* and *Foundation Astronautics
    Notebook*, each a quarterly 4-8 page newsletter. Contributing Associate,
    minimum of $15/year (but more money always welcome to support projects).

	World Space Foundation
	Post Office Box Y
	South Pasadena, California 91301


    PUBLICATIONS

    Aerospace Daily (McGraw-Hill)
	Very good coverage of aerospace and space issues. Approx. $1400/yr.

    Air & Space / Smithsonian (bimonthly magazine)
	Box 53261
	Boulder, CO 80332-3261
	$18/year US, $24/year international

    ESA - The European Space Agency publishes a variety of periodicals,
	generally available free of charge. A document describing them in
	more detail is in the Ames SPACE archive in
	pub/SPACE/FAQ/ESAPublications.

    Final Frontier (mass-market bimonthly magazine) - history, book reviews,
	general-interest articles (e.g. "The 7 Wonders of the Solar System",
	"Everything you always wanted to know about military space
	programs", etc.)

	Final Frontier Publishing Co.
	PO Box 534
	Mt. Morris, IL 61054-7852
	$14.95/year US, $19.95 Canada, $23.95 elsewhere

    Space News (weekly magazine) - covers US civil and military space
	programs. Said to have good political and business but spotty
	technical coverage.

	Space News
	Springfield VA 22159-0500
	(703)-642-7330
	$75/year, may have discounts for NSS/SSI members

    Journal of the Astronautical Sciences and Space Times - publications of
	the American Astronautical Society. No details.

	AAS Business Office
	6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite #102
	Springfield, VA 22152
	(703)-866-0020

    GPS World (semi-monthly) - reports on current and new uses of GPS, news
	and analysis of the system and policies affecting it, and technical
	and product issues shaping GPS applications.

	GPS World
	859 Willamette St.
	P.O. Box 10460
	Eugene, OR 97440-2460
	(503)-343-1200

	Free to qualified individuals; write for free sample copy.

    Innovation (Space Technology) -- Free. Published by the NASA Office of
	Advanced Concepts and Technology. A revised version of the NASA
	Office of Commercial Programs newsletter.

    Planetary Encounter - in-depth technical coverage of planetary missions,
	with diagrams, lists of experiments, interviews with people directly
	involved.
    World Spaceflight News - in-depth technical coverage of near-Earth
	spaceflight. Mostly covers the shuttle: payload manifests, activity
	schedules, and post-mission assessment reports for every mission.

	Box 98
	Sewell, NJ 08080
	$30/year US/Canada
	$45/year elsewhere

    Space (bi-monthly magazine)
	British aerospace trade journal. Very good. $75/year.

    Space Calendar (weekly newsletter)

    Space Daily/Space Fax Daily  (newsletter)
	Short (1 paragraph) news notes. Available online for a fee
	(unknown).

    Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News -- irregular Internet
	column on aspects of commercial space business. Free. Also limited
	fax and paper edition.

	    P.O. Box 2452
	    Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452.

    All the following are published by:

	Phillips Business Information, Inc.
	7811 Montrose Road
	Potomac, MC 20854

	Aerospace Financial News - $595/year.
	Defense Daily - Very good coverage of space and defense issues.
	    $1395/year.
	Space Business News (bi-weekly) - Very good overview of space
	    business activities. $497/year.
	Space Exploration Technology (bi-weekly) - $495/year.
	Space Station News (bi-weekly) - $497/year.

    UNDOCUMENTED GROUPS

	Anyone who would care to write up descriptions of the following
	groups (or others not mentioned) for inclusion in the answer is
	encouraged to do so.

	AAS - American Astronautical Society
	Other groups not mentioned above

NEXT: FAQ #14/15 - How to become an astronaut

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59850
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 14/15 - How to Become an Astronaut

Archive-name: space/astronaut
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:02 $

HOW TO BECOME AN ASTRONAUT

    First the short form, authored by Henry Spencer, then an official NASA
    announcement.

    Q. How do I become an astronaut?

    A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably
    impossible for a non-Russian to get into the cosmonaut corps (paying
    passengers are not professional cosmonauts), and the other nations have
    so few astronauts (and fly even fewer) that you're better off hoping to
    win a lottery. Becoming a shuttle pilot requires lots of fast-jet
    experience, which means a military flying career; forget that unless you
    want to do it anyway. So you want to become a shuttle "mission
    specialist".

    If you aren't a US citizen, become one; that is a must.  After that,
    the crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly
    exceeds the supply.  NASA's problem is not finding qualified people,
    but thinning the lineup down to manageable length.	It is not enough
    to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason,
    many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job.

    Get a Ph.D.  Specialize in something that involves getting your hands
    dirty with equipment, not just paper and pencil.  Forget computer
    programming entirely; it will be done from the ground for the fore-
    seeable future.  Degree(s) in one field plus work experience in
    another seems to be a frequent winner.

    Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight.	(DO NOT get a
    radial keratomy or similar hack to improve your vision; nobody knows
    what sudden pressure changes would do to RKed eyes, and long-term
    effects are poorly understood.  For that matter, avoid any other
    significant medical unknowns.)  If you can pass a jet-pilot physical,
    you should be okay; if you can't, your chances are poor.

    Practise public speaking, and be conservative and conformist in
    appearance and actions; you've got a tough selling job ahead, trying
    to convince a cautious, conservative selection committee that you
    are better than hundreds of other applicants.  (And, also, that you
    will be a credit to NASA after you are hired:  public relations is
    a significant part of the job, and NASA's image is very prim and
    proper.)  The image you want is squeaky-clean workaholic yuppie.
    Remember also that you will need a security clearance at some point,
    and Security considers everybody guilty until proven innocent.
    Keep your nose clean.

    Get a pilot's license and make flying your number one hobby;
    experienced pilots are known to be favored even for non-pilot jobs.

    Work for NASA; of 45 astronauts selected between 1984 and 1988,
    43 were military or NASA employees, and the remaining two were
    a NASA consultant and Mae Jemison (the first black female astronaut).
    If you apply from outside NASA and miss, but they offer you a job
    at NASA, ***TAKE IT***; sometimes in the past this has meant "you
    do look interesting but we want to know you a bit better first".

    Think space:  they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance
    to demonstrate motivation.

    Keep trying.  Many astronauts didn't make it the first time.




    NASA
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
    Houston, Texas

    Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates
    ==================================================================

    Astronaut Candidate Program
    ---------------------------

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a need for
    Pilot Astronaut Candidates and Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidates
    to support the Space Shuttle Program. NASA is now accepting on a
    continuous basis and plans to select astronaut candidates as needed.

    Persons from both the civilian sector and the military services will be
    considered.

    All positions are located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in
    Houston, Texas, and will involved a 1-year training and evaluation
    program.

    Space Shuttle Program Description
    ---------------------------------

    The numerous successful flights of the Space Shuttle have demonstrated
    that operation and experimental investigations in space are becoming
    routine. The Space Shuttle Orbiter is launched into, and maneuvers in
    the Earth orbit performing missions lastling up to 30 days. It then
    returns to earth and is ready for another flight with payloads and
    flight crew.

    The Orbiter performs a variety of orbital missions including deployment
    and retrieval of satellites, service of existing satellites, operation
    of specialized laboratories (astronomy, earth sciences, materials
    processing, manufacturing), and other operations. These missions will
    eventually include the development and servicing of a permanent space
    station. The Orbiter also provides a staging capability for using higher
    orbits than can be achieved by the Orbiter itself. Users of the Space
    Shuttle's capabilities are both domestic and foreign and include
    government agencies and private industries.

    The crew normally consists of five people - the commander, the pilot,
    and three mission specialists. On occasion additional crew members are
    assigned. The commander, pilot, and mission specialists are NASA
    astronauts.

    Pilot Astronaut

    Pilot astronauts server as both Space Shuttle commanders and pilots.
    During flight the commander has onboard responsibility for the vehicle,
    crew, mission success and safety in flight. The pilot assists the
    commander in controlling and operating the vehicle. In addition, the
    pilot may assist in the deployment and retrieval of satellites utilizing
    the remote manipulator system, in extra-vehicular activities, and other
    payload operations.

    Mission Specialist Astronaut

    Mission specialist astronauts, working with the commander and pilot,
    have overall responsibility for the coordination of Shuttle operations
    in the areas of crew activity planning, consumables usage, and
    experiment and payload operations. Mission specialists are required to
    have a detailed knowledge of Shuttle systems, as well as detailed
    knowledge of the operational characteristics, mission requirements and
    objectives, and supporting systems and equipment for each of the
    experiments to be conducted on their assigned missions. Mission
    specialists will perform extra-vehicular activities, payload handling
    using the remote manipulator system, and perform or assist in specific
    experimental operations.

    Astronaut Candidate Program
    ===========================

    Basic Qualification Requirements
    --------------------------------

    Applicants MUST meet the following minimum requirements prior to
    submitting an application.

    Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate:

    1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering,
    biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be
    followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible,
    professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable and may be
    substituted for part or all of the experience requirement (master's
    degree = 1 year, doctoral degree = 3 years). Quality of academic
    preparation is important.

    2. Ability to pass a NASA class II space physical, which is similar to a
    civilian or military class II flight physical and includes the following
    specific standards:

	 Distant visual acuity:
	      20/150 or better uncorrected,
	      correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	 Blood pressure:
	      140/90 measured in sitting position.

    3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.

    Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

    1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering,
    biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be
    followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible,
    professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable. Quality of
    academic preparation is important.

    2. At least 1000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight
    test experience highly desirable.

    3. Ability to pass a NASA Class I space physical which is similar to a
    military or civilian Class I flight physical and includes the following
    specific standards:

	 Distant visual acuity:
	      20/50 or better uncorrected
	      correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	 Blood pressure:
	      140/90 measured in sitting position.

    4. Height between 64 and 76 inches.

    Citizenship Requirements

    Applications for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of
    the United States.

    Note on Academic Requirements

    Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must meet the basic
    education requirements for NASA engineering and scientific positions --
    specifically: successful completion of standard professional curriculum
    in an accredited college or university leading to at least a bachelor's
    degree with major study in an appropriate field of engineering,
    biological science, physical science, or mathematics.

      The following degree fields, while related to engineering and the
    sciences, are not considered qualifying:
      - Degrees in technology (Engineering Technology, Aviation Technology,
	Medical Technology, etc.)
      - Degrees in Psychology (except for Clinical Psychology, Physiological
	Psychology, or Experimental Psychology which are qualifying).
      - Degrees in Nursing.
      - Degrees in social sciences (Geography, Anthropology, Archaeology, etc.)
      - Degrees in Aviation, Aviation Management or similar fields.

    Application Procedures
    ----------------------

    Civilian

    The application package may be obtained by writing to:

	NASA Johnson Space Center
	Astronaut Selection Office
	ATTN: AHX
	Houston, TX 77058

    Civilian applications will be accepted on a continuous basis. When NASA
    decides to select additional astronaut candidates, consideration will be
    given only to those applications on hand on the date of decision is
    made. Applications received after that date will be retained and
    considered for the next selection. Applicants will be notified annually
    of the opportunity to update their applications and to indicate
    continued interest in being considered for the program. Those applicants
    who do not update their applications annually will be dropped from
    consideration, and their applications will not be retained. After the
    preliminary screening of applications, additional information may be
    requested for some applicants, and person listed on the application as
    supervisors and references may be contacted.

    Active Duty Military

    Active duty military personnel must submit applications to their
    respective military service and not directly to NASA. Application
    procedures will be disseminated by each service.

    Selection
    ---------

    Personal interviews and thorough medical evaluations will be required
    for both civilian and military applicants under final consideration.
    Once final selections have been made, all applicants who were considered
    will be notified of the outcome of the process.

    Selection rosters established through this process may be used for the
    selection of additional candidates during a one year period following
    their establishment.

    General Program Requirements

    Selected applicants will be designated Astronaut Candidates and will be
    assigned to the Astronaut Office at the Johnson Space Center, Houston,
    Texas. The astronaut candidates will undergo a 1 year training and
    evaluation period during which time they will be assigned technical or
    scientific responsibilities allowing them to contribute substantially to
    ongoing programs. They will also participate in the basic astronaut
    training program which is designed to develop the knowledge and skills
    required for formal mission training upon selection for a flight. Pilot
    astronaut candidates will maintain proficiency in NASA aircraft during
    their candidate period.

    Applicants should be aware that selection as an astronaut candidate does
    not insure selection as an astronaut. Final selection as an astronaut
    will depend on satisfactory completion of the 1 year training and
    evaluation period. Civilian candidates who successfully complete the
    training and evaluation and are selected as astronauts will become
    permanent Federal employees and will be expected to remain with NASA for
    a period of at least five years. Civilian candidates who are not
    selected as astronauts may be placed in other positions within NASA
    depending upon Agency requirements and manpower constraints at that
    time. Successful military candidates will be detailed to NASA for a
    specified tour of duty.

    NASA has an affirmative action program goal of having qualified
    minorities and women among those qualified as astronaut candidates.
    Therefore, qualified minorities and women are encouraged to apply.

    Pay and Benefits
    ----------------

    Civilians

    Salaries for civilian astronaut candidates are based on the Federal
    Governments General Schedule pay scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14,
    and are set in accordance with each individuals academic achievements
    and experience.

    Other benefits include vacation and sick leave, a retirement plan, and
    participation in group health and life insurance plans.

    Military

    Selected military personnel will be detailed to the Johnson Space Center
    but will remain in an active duty status for pay, benefits, leave, and
    other similar military matters.


NEXT: FAQ #15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59870
Subject: Diffs to sci.space/sci.astro Frequently Asked Questions
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/diff

DIFFS SINCE LAST FAQ POSTING (IN POSTING ORDER)

(These are hand-edited context diffs; do not attempt to use them to patch
old copies of the FAQ).

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.intro
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06400	Thu Apr  1 14:47:22 1993
--- FAQ.intro	Thu Apr  1 14:46:55 1993
***************
*** 101,107 ****
		  NASA Langley (Technical Reports)
		  NASA Spacelink
		  National Space Science Data Center
-		  Space And Planetary Image Facility
		  Space Telescope Science Institute Electronic Info. Service
		  Starcat
		  Astronomical Databases
--- 101,106 ----
***************
*** 130,135 ****
--- 129,135 ----
	      LLNL "great exploration"
	      Lunar Prospector
	      Lunar science and activities
+	      Orbiting Earth satellite histories
	      Spacecraft models
	      Rocket propulsion
	      Spacecraft design

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.net
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06405	Thu Apr  1 14:47:24 1993
--- FAQ.net	Thu Apr  1 14:46:57 1993
***************
*** 58,63 ****
--- 58,67 ----
      elements are sent out on the list from Dr. Kelso, JSC, and other sources
      as they are released. Email to elements-request@telesoft.com to join.

+     GPS Digest is a moderated list for discussion of the Global Positioning
+     System and other satellite navigation positioning systems. Email to
+     gps-request@esseye.si.com to join.
+
      Space-investors is a list for information relevant to investing in
      space-related companies. Email Vincent Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) to join.

***************
*** 223,227 ****
--- 227,241 ----
      1030. If in fact you should should learn of unauthorized access, contact
      NASA personnel.

+     Claims have been made on this news group about fraud and waste. None
+     have ever been substantiated to any significant degree. Readers
+     detecting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Mismanagement should contact the NASA
+     Inspector General (24-hours) at 800-424-9183 (can be anonymous) or write
+
+	  NASA
+	  Inspector General
+	  P.O. Box 23089
+	  L'enfant Plaza Station
+	  Washington DC 20024

  NEXT: FAQ #3/15 - Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.data
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06410	Thu Apr  1 14:47:26 1993
--- FAQ.data	Thu Apr  1 14:46:54 1993
***************
*** 216,237 ****
	  Telephone: (301) 286-6695

	  Email address:   request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
-
-
-     SPACE AND PLANETARY IMAGE FACILITY
-
-     Available 24 hours a day via anonymous FTP from pioneer.unm.edu. Has
-     approximately 150 CD-ROM's full of imagery, raw, and tabular data. To
-     start, get the file:
-
-	  pioneer.unm.edu:pub/info/beginner-info
-
-     This will hopefully give you all of the information you need to get data
-     from their machine. beginner-info has been translated to other
-     languages, you should look inside pub/info for the particular language
-     that meets your needs.
-
-     Contact help@pioneer.unm.edu.


      SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE
--- 216,221 ----

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.math
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06415	Thu Apr  1 14:47:28 1993
--- FAQ.math	Thu Apr  1 14:46:56 1993
***************
*** 60,65 ****
--- 60,71 ----
	  Gives series to compute positions accurate to 1 arc minute for a
	  period + or - 300 years from now. Pluto is included but stated to
	  have an accuracy of only about 15 arc minutes.
+
+     _Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac_ (MICA), produced by the US
+     Naval Observatory. Valid for years 1990-1999. $55 ($80 outside US).
+     Available for IBM (order #PB93-500163HDV) or Macintosh (order
+     #PB93-500155HDV). From the NTIS sales desk, (703)-487-4650. I believe
+     this is intended to replace the USNO's Interactive Computer Ephemeris.

      _Interactive Computer Ephemeris_ (from the US Naval Observatory)
      distributed on IBM-PC floppy disks, $35 (Willmann-Bell). Covers dates

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.references
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06420	Thu Apr  1 14:47:30 1993
--- FAQ.references	Thu Apr  1 14:46:59 1993
***************
*** 93,100 ****
      US Naval Observatory
	  202-653-1079 (USNO Bulletin Board via modem)
	  202-653-1507 General
-	  202-653-1545 Nautical Almanac Office (info on the Interactive
-	      Computer Ephemeris)

      Willmann-Bell
      P.O. Box 35025
--- 93,98 ----
***************
*** 138,151 ****
      SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
      suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
      mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
!     orbit vehicle is uncertain at present; for considerably more detail on
!     the SSRT program, get the document

!	  ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/DeltaClipper

!     by anonymous FTP or through the email server.


      HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

      Official names are decided by committees of the International
--- 136,151 ----
      SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
      suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
      mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
!     orbit vehicle (called Delta Clipper) is uncertain at present.

!     An collection of pictures and files relating to DC-X is available by
!     anonymous FTP or email server in the directory

!	  bongo.cc.utexas.edu:pub/delta-clipper

+     Chris W. Johnson (chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu) maintains the archive.

+
      HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

      Official names are decided by committees of the International
***************
*** 223,228 ****
--- 223,236 ----
      University Press, 1970. Information about the Lunar Orbiter missions,
      including maps of the coverage of the lunar nearside and farside by
      various Orbiters.
+
+
+     ORBITING EARTH SATELLITE HISTORIES
+
+     A list of Earth orbiting satellites (that are still in orbit) is
+     available by anonymous FTP in:
+
+	  ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/Satellites


      SPACECRAFT MODELS

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.addresses
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06435	Thu Apr  1 14:47:34 1993
--- FAQ.addresses	Thu Apr  1 14:46:51 1993
***************
*** 75,80 ****
--- 75,85 ----
	  the latter, an SF 171 is useless. Employees are Caltech employees,
	  contractors, and for the most part have similar responsibilities.
	  They offer an alternative to funding after other NASA Centers.
+
+	  A fact sheet and description of JPL is available by anonymous
+	  FTP in
+
+	      ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/JPLDescription

      NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
      Houston, TX 77058

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.new_probes
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06450	Thu Apr  1 14:47:38 1993
--- FAQ.new_probes	Thu Apr  1 14:46:58 1993
***************
*** 8,13 ****
--- 8,19 ----
      team, ISAS/NASDA launch schedules, press kits.


+     ASUKA (ASTRO-D) - ISAS (Japan) X-ray astronomy satellite, launched into
+     Earth orbit on 2/20/93. Equipped with large-area wide-wavelength (1-20
+     Angstrom) X-ray telescope, X-ray CCD cameras, and imaging gas
+     scintillation proportional counters.
+
+
      CASSINI - Saturn orbiter and Titan atmosphere probe. Cassini is a joint
      NASA/ESA project designed to accomplish an exploration of the Saturnian
      system with its Cassini Saturn Orbiter and Huygens Titan Probe. Cassini
***************
*** 98,115 ****


      MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
!     surface at high resolution. Currently (11/92) in mapping cycle 4,
!     collecting a global gravity map.


      MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
!     Launched 9/24/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (3/93) in
      transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
      one martian year (687 days).


!     TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched in
!     August 1992 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
      TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
      observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
      increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
--- 104,121 ----


      MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
!     surface at high resolution. Currently (4/93) collecting a global gravity
!     map.


      MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
!     Launched 9/25/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (4/93) in
      transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
      one martian year (687 days).


!     TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched
!     8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
      TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
      observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
      increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.astronaut
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06465	Thu Apr  1 14:47:43 1993
--- FAQ.astronaut	Thu Apr  1 14:46:52 1993
***************
*** 162,174 ****
      specific standards:

	   Distant visual acuity:
!		20/100 or better uncorrected,
		correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	   Blood pressure:
		140/90 measured in sitting position.

!     3. Height between 60 and 76 inches.

      Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

--- 162,174 ----
      specific standards:

	   Distant visual acuity:
!		20/150 or better uncorrected,
		correctable to 20/20, each eye.

	   Blood pressure:
		140/90 measured in sitting position.

!     3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.

      Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59871
Subject: Space FAQ 01/15 - Introduction
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/intro
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:10 $

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON SCI.SPACE/SCI.ASTRO

    INTRODUCTION

    This series of linked messages is periodically posted to the Usenet
groups sci.space and sci.astro in an attempt to provide good answers to
frequently asked questions and other reference material which is worth
preserving. If you have corrections or answers to other frequently asked
questions that you would like included in this posting, send email to
leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech).

    If you don't want to see the FAQ, add 'Frequently Asked Questions' to
your KILL file for this group (if you're not reading this with a newsreader
that can kill articles by subject, you're out of luck).

    The FAQ volume is excessive right now and will hopefully be trimmed down
by rewriting and condensing over time. The FAQ postings are available in
the Ames SPACE archive in FAQ/faq<#>.

    Good summaries will be accepted in place of the answers given here. The
point of this is to circulate existing information, and avoid rehashing old
answers. Better to build on top than start again. Nothing more depressing
than rehashing old topics for the 100th time. References are provided
because they give more complete information than any short generalization.

    Questions fall into three basic types:

    1) Where do I find some information about space?

    Try your local public library first. The net is not a good place to ask
    for general information. Ask INDIVIDUALS (by email) if you must. There
    are other sources, use them, too. The net is a place for open ended
    discussion.

    2) I have an idea which would improve space flight?

    Hope you aren't surprised, but 9,999 out of 10,000 have usually been
    thought of before. Again, contact a direct individual source for
    evaluation. NASA fields thousands of these each day.

    3) Miscellanous queries.

    These are addressed on a case-by-case basis in the following series of
    FAQ postings.


    SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER NETIQUETTE

    Read news.announce.newusers if you're on Usenet.
    Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
    Edit "Subject:" lines, especially if you're taking a tangent.
    Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. (1 mail message worth
	100 posts).
    Internet mail readers: send requests to add/drop to SPACE-REQUEST
	not SPACE.
    Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. (Check all
	references.)
    Cut down attributed articles (leave only the points you're
	responding to; remove signatures and headers). Summarize!
    Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail
	or article), state your institution, etc. Don't assume the
	'reply' function of mailers will work.
    Use absolute dates. Post in a timely way. Don't post what everyone
	will get on TV anyway.
    Some editors and window systems do character count line wrapping:
	keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terminals
	(use carriage returns).


    INDEX TO LINKED POSTINGS

    I've attempted to break the postings up into related areas. There isn't
    a keyword index yet; the following lists the major subject areas in each
    posting. Only those containing astronomy-related material are posted to
    sci.astro (indicated by '*' following the posting number).

    #	Contents

    1*	Introduction
	    Suggestions for better netiquette
	    Index to linked postings
	    Notes on addresses, phone numbers, etc.
	    Contributors

    2*	Network resources
	    Overview
	    Mailing lists
	    Periodically updated information
	    Warning about non-public networks

    3*	Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.
	    Introduction
	    Viewing Images
	    Online Archives
		NASA Ames
		NASA Astrophysics Data System
		NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (Mission Information and Images)
		NASA Langley (Technical Reports)
		NASA Spacelink
		National Space Science Data Center
		Space Telescope Science Institute Electronic Info. Service
		Starcat
		Astronomical Databases
		Astronomy Programs
		Orbital Element Sets
		SPACE Digest
	    Landsat & NASA Photos
	    Planetary Maps
	    Cometary Orbits

    4*	Performing calculations and interpreting data formats
	    Computing spacecraft orbits and trajectories
	    Computing planetary positions
	    Computing crater diameters from Earth-impacting asteroids
	    Map projections and spherical trignometry
	    Performing N-body simulations efficiently
	    Interpreting the FITS image format
	    Sky (Unix ephemeris program)
	    Three-dimensional star/galaxy coordinates

    5*	References on specific areas
	    Publishers of space/astronomy material
	    Careers in the space industry
	    DC-X single-stage to orbit (SSTO) program
	    How to name a star after a person
	    LLNL "great exploration"
	    Lunar Prospector
	    Lunar science and activities
	    Orbiting Earth satellite histories
	    Spacecraft models
	    Rocket propulsion
	    Spacecraft design
	    Esoteric propulsion schemes (solar sails, lasers, fusion...)
	    Spy satellites
	    Space shuttle computer systems
	    SETI computation (signal processing)
	    Amateur satellies & weather satellites
	    Tides

    6*	Constants and equations for calculations

    7*	Astronomical Mnemonics

    8	Contacting NASA, ESA, and other space agencies/companies
	    NASA Centers / Arianespace / ESA / NASDA / Soyuzkarta / Space
		Camp / Space Commerce Corporation / Spacehab / SPOT Image
	    Other commercial space businesses

    9	Space shuttle answers, launch schedules, TV coverage
	    Shuttle launchings and landings; schedules and how to see them
	    Why does the shuttle roll just after liftoff?
	    How to receive the NASA TV channel, NASA SELECT
	    Amateur radio frequencies for shuttle missions
	    Solid Rocket Booster fuel composition

    10	Planetary probes - Historical Missions
	    US planetary missions
	    Mariner (Venus, Mars, & Mercury flybys and orbiters)
	    Pioneer (Moon, Sun, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn flybys and orbiters)
	    Ranger (Lunar lander and impact missions)
	    Lunar Orbiter (Lunar surface photography)
	    Surveyor (Lunar soft landers)
	    Viking (Mars orbiters and landers)
	    Voyager (Outer planet flybys)
	    Soviet planetary missions
	    Soviet Lunar probes
	    Soviet Venus probes
	    Soviet Mars probes
	    Japanese planetary missions
	    Planetary mission references

    11	Upcoming planetary probes - missions and schedules
	    Cassini
	    Galileo
	    Magellan
	    Mars Observer
	    TOPEX/Poseidon
	    Ulysses
	    Other space science missions
	    Proposed missions

    12	Controversial questions
	    What happened to the Saturn V plans
	    Why data from space missions isn't immediately available
	    Risks of nuclear (RTG) power sources for space probes
	    Impact of the space shuttle on the ozone layer
	    How long can a human live unprotected in space
	    How the Challenger astronauts died
	    Using the shuttle beyond Low Earth Orbit
	    The "Face on Mars"

    13	Space activist/interest/research groups and space publications
	    Groups
	    Publications
	    Undocumented Groups

    14	How to become an astronaut

    15	Orbital and Planetary Launch Services


    NOTES ON ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, ETC.

    Unless otherwise specified, telephone numbers, addresses, and so on are
    for the United States of America. Non-US readers should remember to add
    the country code for telephone calls, etc.


    CREDITS

    Eugene Miya started a series of linked FAQ postings some years ago which
    inspired (and was largely absorbed into) this set.

    Peter Yee and Ron Baalke have and continue to spend a lot of their own
    time setting up the SPACE archives at NASA Ames and forwarding official
    NASA announcements.

    Many other people have contributed material to this list in the form of
    old postings to sci.space and sci.astro which I've edited. Please let me
    know if corrections need to be made. Contributors I've managed to keep
    track of are:

    0004847546@mcimail.com (Francis Reddy)	- map projections
    ad038@yfn.ysu.edu (Steven Fisk)		- publication refs.
    akerman@bill.phy.queensu.CA (Richard Akerman)   - crater diameters
    alweigel@athena.mit.edu (Lisa Weigel)	- SEDS info
    aoab314@emx.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) - tides
    awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) - map projections
    aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)		- Great Exploration
    baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)	- planetary probe schedules
    bankst@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Timothy Banks)	- map projections,
	variable star analysis archive
    bern@uni-trier.de (Jochen Bern)		- German mnemonic translation
    brosen@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bernie Rosen)	- Space Camp
    bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)   - FITS format
    cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward)		- space group contact info
    chapin@cbnewsc.att.com (Tom Chapin)		- planetary positions
    cunnida@tenet.edu (D. Alan Cunningham)	- NASA Spacelink
    cyamamot@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Cliff Yamamoto) - orbital elements
    datri@convex.com (Anthony Datri)		- PDS/VICAR viewing software
    daver@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)		- orbit formulae
    dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering)		- propulsion
    eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)		- Saturn V plans, SRBs
    eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)	- introduction,
	NASA contact info, started FAQ postings
    french@isu.isunet.edu (Patrick M. French)	- space group contact info
    g@telesoft.com (Gary Morris)		- amateur radio info
    gaetz@cfa.harvard.edu (Terry Gaetz)		- N-body calculations,
	orbital dynamics
    grandi@noao.edu (Steve Grandi)		- planetary positions
    greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov (Dale M. Greer)   - constants
    henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)	- survival in vacuum,
	astronaut how-to, Challenger disaster, publication refs, DC-X
    higgins@fnal.bitnet (William Higgins)	- RTGs, publishers,
	shuttle landings, spysats, propulsion, "Face on Mars"
    hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller)	- map projections,
	orbital dynamics
    jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)	- launch services
    jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)		- propulsion, launch services
    jnhead@pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (James N. Head) - atmospheric scale heights
    jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti)	- planetary positions
    kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)- refs for spacecraft design
    ken@orion.bitnet (Kenneth Ng)		- RTGs
    kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks)	- shuttle roll manuever
    klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)	- planetary probe history
    leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)		- crater diameters
    lfa@ssi.com (Lou Adornato)			- orbital dynamics
    maury.markowitz@egsgate.fidonet.org (Maury Markowitz)   - propulsion
    max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)	- equations
    mbellon@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM		- N-body calculations
    mcconley@phoenix.Princeton.edu (Marc Wayne Mcconley)    - space careers
    msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)			- Mariner 1 info.
    mwm@cmu.edu (Mark Maimone)			- SPACE Digest
    nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Dr. Nick Watkins)	- models, spysats
    ohainaut@eso.org (Olivier R. Hainaut)	- publishers, STARCAT
    oneil@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Graham O'Neil)	- Lunar Prospector
    panama@cup.portal.com (Kenneth W Durham)	- cometary orbits, IAU
    paul.blase@nss.fidonet.org (Paul Blase)	- propulsion
    pjs@plato.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Scott)	- RTGs
    pschleck@unomaha.edu (Paul W. Schleck)	- AMSAT, ARRL contact info
    rdb@mel.cocam.oz.au (Rodney Brown)		- propulsion refs
    rja7m@phil.cs.virginia.edu (Ran Atkinson)	- FTPable astro. programs
    rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com (R. Michael Jungclas)- models
    roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu (Curt Roelle)	- German mnemonic translation
    seal@leonardo.jpl.nasa.gov (David Seal)	- Cassini mission schedule
    shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)	- photos, shuttle landings
    smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith)	- photos
    stephen@gpwd.gp.co.nz (Stephen Dixon)	- shuttle audio frequencies
    sterner@warper.jhuapl.edu (Ray Sterner)	- planetary positions
    stooke@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca (Phil Stooke)	- planetary maps
    ted_anderson@transarc.com (Ted Anderson)	- propulsion
    terry@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terry Hancock)	- NASA center info
    thorson@typhoon.atmos.coloState.edu (Bill Thorson) - FITS info
    tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco)	- SPACE Digest
    tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)	- refs for algorithms
    veikko.makela@helsinki.fi (Veikko Makela)	- orbital element sets
    Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) - groups & publications
    wayne@csri.utoronto.ca (Wayne Hayes)	- constants
    weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) - Voyager history
    yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp (Yoshiro Yamada)	- ISAS/NASDA missions
    yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Yee)		- AMES archive server,
	propulsion

    In Net memoriam:
	Ted Flinn

NEXT: FAQ #2/15 - Network Resources

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59872
Subject: Space FAQ 02/15 - Network Resources
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/net
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:15 $

NETWORK RESOURCES

OVERVIEW

    You may be reading this document on any one of an amazing variety of
    computers, so much of the material below may not apply to you. In
    general, however, systems connected to 'the net' fall in one of three
    categories: Internet, Usenet, or BITNET. Electronic mail may be sent
    between these networks, and other resources available on one of these
    networks are sometimes accessible from other networks by email sent to
    special 'servers'.

    The space and astronomy discussion groups actually are composed of
    several mechanisms with (mostly) transparent connections between them.

    One mechanism is the mailing list, in which mail is sent to a central
    distribution point which relays it to all recipients of the list. In
    addition to the general lists for space (called SPACE Digest for
    Internet users, and SPACE on BITNET), there are a number of more
    specialized mailing lists described below.

    A second mechanism is Usenet 'netnews'. This is somewhat like a bulletin
    board operating on each system which is a part of the net. Netnews
    separates contributions into hundreds of different categories based on a
    'group name'. The groups dealing most closely with space topics are
    called 'sci.space.news', 'sci.space', 'sci.space.shuttle', 'sci.astro',
    and 'talk.politics.space'. Contributors 'post' submissions (called
    'articles' in netnews terminology) on their local machine, which sends
    it to other nearby machines. Similarly, articles sent from nearby
    machines are stored locally and may be forwarded to other systems, so
    that an article is posted locally and eventually reaches all the Usenet
    sites interested in receiving the news group to which the article was
    posted.

    Gateway machines redirect the Usenet sci.space group into Internet and
    BITNET mailing lists and vice versa; the other Usenet groups are not
    accessible as mailing lists. If you can receive netnews, its more
    flexible interface and access to a wider range of material usually make
    it the preferred option.

MAILING LISTS

    SPACE Digest is the main Internet list, and is now being run by the
    International Space University (in only its second change of management
    in over a decade). Email space-request@isu.isunet.edu (message body
    should be in the format 'subscribe space John Public') to join. Note
    that the moderated SPACE Magazine list is defunct at present for lack of
    a moderator. Old copies of SPACE Digest since its inception in 1981 are
    available by anonymous FTP. Retrieve
	julius.cs.qub.ac.uk:pub/SpaceDigestArchive/README
    for further details.

    Elements is a moderated list for fast distribution of Space Shuttle
    Keplerian Elements before and during Shuttle flights. NASA two line
    elements are sent out on the list from Dr. Kelso, JSC, and other sources
    as they are released. Email to elements-request@telesoft.com to join.

    GPS Digest is a moderated list for discussion of the Global Positioning
    System and other satellite navigation positioning systems. Email to
    gps-request@esseye.si.com to join.

    Space-investors is a list for information relevant to investing in
    space-related companies. Email Vincent Cate (vac@cs.cmu.edu) to join.

    Space-tech is a list for more technical discussion of space topics;
    discussion has included esoteric propulsion technologies, asteroid
    capture, starflight, orbital debris removal, etc. Email to
    space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu to join. Archives of old digests and
    selected excerpts are available by anonymous FTP from
    gs80.sp.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.205.90) in /usr/anon/public/space-tech,
    or by email to space-tech-request if you don't have FTP access.

    SEDS-L is a BITNET list for members of Students for the Exploration and
    Development of Space and other interested parties. Email
    LISTSERV@TAMVM1.BITNET with a message saying "SUBSCRIBE SEDS-L your
    name". Email saying "INDEX SEDS-L" to list the archive contents.

    SEDSNEWS is a BITNET list for news items, press releases, shuttle status
    reports, and the like. This duplicates material which is also found in
    Space Digest, sci.space, sci.space.shuttle, and sci.astro. Email
    LISTSERV@TAMVM1.BITNET saying "SUBSCRIBE SEDSNEWS your name" to join.
    Email saying "INDEX SEDSNEWS" to list the archive contents.

    Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) runs a mailing list which
    carries the contents of the sci.space.news Usenet group. Email him
    to join the list.

    As a general note, please mail to the *request* address to get off a
    mailing list. SPACE Digest, for example, relays many inappropriate
    'please remove me from this list' messages which are sent to the list
    address rather than the request address.

PERIODICALLY UPDATED INFORMATION

    In addition to this FAQ list, a broad variety of topical information is
    posted to the net (unless otherwise noted, in the new group
    sci.space.news created for this purpose). Please remember that the
    individuals posting this information are performing a service for all
    net readers, and don't take up their time with frivolous requests.

    ACRONYMS
	Garrett Wollman (wollman@UVM.EDU) posts an acronym list around the
	first of each month.

    ASTRO-FTP LIST
	Veikko Makela (veikko.makela@helsinki.fi) posts a monthly list of
	anonymous FTP servers containing astronomy and space related
	material to sci.space and sci.astro.

    AVIATION WEEK
	Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) posts summaries of
	space-related stories in the weekly _Aviation Week and Space
	Technology_.

    BUYING TELESCOPES
	Ronnie Kon (ronnie@cisco.com) posts a guide to buying telescopes to
	sci.astro.

    ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASA
	Don Barry (don@chara.gsu.edu) posts the monthly Electronic Journal
	of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic to sci.astro.

    FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
	Swaraj Jeyasingh (sjeyasin@axion.bt.co.uk) posts summaries of
	space-related news from _Flight International_. This focuses more on
	non-US space activities than Aviation Week.

    LARGE ASTRONOMICAL PROJECTS
	Robert Bunge (rbunge@access.digex.com) posts a list describing many
	"Large Telescope Projects Either Being Considered or in the Works"
	to sci.astro.

    NASA HEADLINE NEWS & SHUTTLE REPORTS
	Peter Yee (yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov) posts a variety of NASA material,
	including NASA Headline News (with the schedule for NASA SELECT),
	shuttle payload briefings and flight manifests, and KSC shuttle
	status reports. For Usenet users, much of this material appears in
	the group sci.space.shuttle.

    NASA UPDATES
	Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) posts frequent updates from
	JPL, Ames, and other centers on the Ulysses, Gailileo, Pioneer,
	Magellan, Landsat, and other missions.

    ORBITAL ELEMENT SETS
	TS Kelso (tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil) posts orbital elements from
	NASA Prediction Bulletins.

	Mike Rose (mrose@stsci.edu) posts orbital elements for the Hubble
	Space Telescope to sci.astro.

	Jost Jahn (j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de) posts ephemerides for asteroids,
	comets, conjunctions, and encounters to sci.astro.

    SATELLITE LAUNCHES
	Richard Langley (lang@unb.ca) posts SPACEWARN Bulletin, which
	describes recent launch/orbital decay information and satellites
	which are useful for scientific activities. Recent bulletins are
	available by anonymous FTP from nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov in
	ANON_DIR:[000000.ACTIVE.SPX].

    SHUTTLE MANIFEST
	Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version
	of the Space Shuttle launch manifest to sci.space.shuttle. This
	includes dates, times, payloads, and information on how to see
	launches and landings.

    SOLAR ACTIVITY
	Cary Oler (oler@hg.uleth.ca) posts Solar Terrestrial reports
	(describing solar activity and its effect on the Earth) to
	sci.space. The report is issued in part from data released by the
	Space Enviroment Services Center, Boulder Colorado. The intro
	document needed to understand these reports is available by
	anonymous FTP from solar.stanford.edu (36.10.0.4) in
	pub/understanding_solar_terrestrial_reports. nic.funet.fi
	(128.214.6.100) also has this document in
	/pub/misc/rec.radio.shortwave/solarreports and is an archive site
	for the reports (please note this site is in Europe, and the
	connection to the US is only 56KB). A new primary archive site,
	xi.uleth.ca (142.66.3.29), has recently been established and will be
	actively supported.

    SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITIES
	Glenn Chapman (glennc@cs.sfu.ca) posts summaries of Soviet space
	activities.

    SPACE ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
	Allen Sherzer (aws@iti.org) posts a newsletter, "One Small Step for
	a Space Activist," to talk.politics.space. It describes current
	legislative activity affecting NASA and commercial space activities.

    SPACE EVENTS CALENDAR
	Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) posts a calendar including
	anniversaries, conferences, launch dates, meteor showers and
	eclipses, and other space-related events.

    SPACE NEWS
	John Magliacane (kd2bd@ka2qhd.UUCP) posts "SpaceNews" (covering
	AMSATs, NOAA and other weather satellites, and other ham
	information) to rec.radio.amateur.misc and sci.space.

    SPACE REPORT
	Jonathan McDowell (mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu) posts "Jonathan's Space
	Report" covering launches, landings, reentries, status reports,
	satellite activities, etc.

    TOWARD 2001
	Bev Freed (freed@nss.fidonet.org) posts "Toward 2001", a weekly
	global news summary reprinted from _Space Calendar_ magazine.


WARNING ABOUT NON-PUBLIC NETWORKS

    (Included at the suggestion of Eugene Miya, who wrote the item)

    NASA has an internal system of unclassified electronic mail and bulletin
    boards. This system is not open for public use. Specifically, NASA
    personnel and procurement operations are regarded with some sensitivity.
    Contractors must renegotiate their contracts. The Fair and Open
    Procurement Act does not look kindly to those having inside information.
    Contractors and outsiders caught using this type of information can
    expect severe penalities. Unauthorized access attempts may subject you
    to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section
    1030. If in fact you should should learn of unauthorized access, contact
    NASA personnel.

    Claims have been made on this news group about fraud and waste. None
    have ever been substantiated to any significant degree. Readers
    detecting Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Mismanagement should contact the NASA
    Inspector General (24-hours) at 800-424-9183 (can be anonymous) or write

	NASA
	Inspector General
	P.O. Box 23089
	L'enfant Plaza Station
	Washington DC 20024

NEXT: FAQ #3/15 - Online (and some offline) sources of images, data, etc.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59873
Subject: Space FAQ 03/15 - Data Sources
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/data
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:07 $

ONLINE AND OTHER SOURCES OF IMAGES, DATA, ETC.


INTRODUCTION

    A wide variety of images, data, catalogs, information releases, and
    other material dealing with space and astronomy may be found on the net.
    A few sites offer direct dialup access or remote login access, while the
    remainder support some form of file transfer. Many sites are listed as
    providing 'anonymous FTP'. This refers to the File Transfer Protocol on
    the Internet. Sites not connected to the Internet cannot use FTP
    directly, but there are a few automated FTP servers which operates via
    email. Send mail containing only the word HELP to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
    or bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu, and the servers will send you instructions
    on how to make requests.

    The sources with the broadest selection of material are the NASA Ames
    SPACE archive and the National Space Science Data Center.

    Don't even ask for images to be posted to the net. The data volume is
    huge and nobody wants to spend the time on it.


VIEWING IMAGES

    The possible combinations of image formats and machines is forebodingly
    large, and I won't attempt to cover common formats (GIF, etc.) here. To
    read PDS and VICAR (and many other) formats on Unix systems running X,
    use XV 2.11, available by anonymous FTP from export.lcs.mit.edu
    (18.24.0.12) in contrib/xv-2.11.tar.Z and the other standard X11 FTP
    sites.

    The FAQ for the Usenet group alt.binaries.pictures discusses image
    formats and how to get image viewing software. A copy of this document
    is available by anonymous FTP from the Usenet FAQ archives at
    pit-manager.mit.edu (18.72.1.58), in directory
    pub/usenet/alt.binaries.pictures.


ONLINE ARCHIVES

    NASA AMES

    Extensive archives are maintained at NASA Ames and are available via
    anonymous FTP or an email server. These archives include many images and
    a wide variety of documents including this FAQ list, NASA press
    releases, shuttle launch advisories, and mission status reports. Please
    note that these are NOT maintained on an official basis.

    FTP users should connect to ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) and look in
    pub/SPACE. pub/SPACE/Index contains a listing of files available in the
    archive (the index is about 200K by itself).

    To access the archives by email, send a letter to
    archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov (or ames!archive-server). In the
    subject of your letter (or in the body), use commands like:

	send SPACE Index
	send SPACE SHUTTLE/ss01.23.91.

    The capitalization of the subdirectory names is important. All are in
    caps. Only text files are handled by the email server at present; use
    one of the FTP email servers described in the introduction to this
    section for images or programs.

    The Magellan Venus and Voyager Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus CD-ROM image
    disks have been put online in the CDROM and CDROM2 directories. The
    disks will be rotated on a weekly basis. Thousands of images are
    available in these collections.

    The GIF directory contains images in GIF format. The VICAR directory
    contains Magellan images in VICAR format (these are also available in
    the GIF directory). A PC program capable of displaying these files is
    found in the IMDISP directory (see the item "VIEWING IMAGES" below).

    The NASA media guide describes the various NASA centers and how to
    contact their public affairs officers; this may be useful when pursuing
    specific information. It's in MISC/media.guide.

    Any problems with the archive server should be reported to Peter Yee
    (yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov).


    NASA ASTROPHYSICS DATA SYSTEM

    The ADS is a distributed data retrieval system which is easy to use and
    provides uniform access to ground-based and space-based astronomy data
    from NASA data centers across the country. It currently has over 140
    data catalogs of radio, infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray data which can
    be queried by position or any other parameter in the catalog. The ADS
    also provides tools to manipulate and plot tabular results. In addition,
    ADS has a Beta version of an Abstracts Service which allows users to
    query over 125,000 abstracts of astronomy papers since 1975 by authors,
    keywords, title words, or abstract text words.

    ADS use requires direct Internet access. For more info and to sign up to
    become a user, email ads@cuads.coloradu.edu. The User's Guide and
    "QuickStart" Guide are available by anonymous FTP to sao-ftp.harvard.edu
    in directory pub/ads/ADS_User_Guide (PostScript files).

    Contact Carolyn Stern Grant (stern@cfa.harvard.edu).


    NASA JET PROPULSION LAB (MISSION INFORMATION AND IMAGES)

    pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2) is an anonymous FTP site operated by
    the JPL Public Information Office, containing news releases, status
    reports, fact sheets, images, and other data on JPL missions. It may
    also be reached by modem at (818)-354-1333 (no parity, 8 data bits, 1
    stop bit).

    Contact newsdesk@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov or phone (818)-354-7170.


    NASA LANGLEY (TECHNICAL REPORTS)

    techreports.larc.nasa.gov is an anonymous FTP site offering technical
    reports. To get started, cd to directory pub/techreports/larc/92 and
    retrieve files README and abstracts.92. Most files are compressed
    PostScript. The reports are also in a WAIS database with the following
    description:

	(:source
	 :version 3
	 :ip-name "techreports.larc.nasa.gov"
	 :tcp-port 210
	 :database-name "nasa-larc-abs"
	 :cost 0.00
	 :cost-unit :free
	 :maintainer "M.L.Nelson@LaRC.NASA.GOV"
	 :description "NASA Langley Research Center Technical Reports

    Contact tr-admin@techreports.larc.nasa.gov.


    NASA SPACELINK

    SpaceLink is an online service located at Marshall Space Flight Center
    in Huntsville, Alabama. The system is specifically designed for
    teachers. The data base is arranged to provide easy access to current
    and historical information on NASA aeronautics, space research, and
    technology transfer information. Also included are suggested classroom
    activities that incorporate information on NASA projects to teach a
    number of scientific principles. Unlike bulletin board systems, NASA
    Spacelink does not provide for interaction between callers. However it
    does allow teachers and other callers to leave questions and comments
    for NASA which may be answered by regular mail. Messages are answered
    electronically, even to acknowledge requests which will be fulfilled by
    mail. Messages are generally handled the next working day except during
    missions when turnaround times increase. The mail system is closed-loop
    between the user and NASA.

    SpaceLink also offers downloadable shareware and public domain programs
    useful for science educators as well as space graphics and GIF images
    from NASA's planetary probes and the Hubble Telescope.

    You can dial in at (205)-895-0028 (300/1200/2400/9600(V.32) baud, 8
    bits, no parity, 1 stop bit), or telnet to spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov
    (128.158.13.250, also known as xsl.msfc.nasa.gov) if you're on the
    Internet. Anonymous FTP capability (password guest) is now available.

    Most of this information is also available from the Ames server in
    directory SPACELINK.


    NATIONAL SPACE SCIENCE DATA CENTER (NSSDC)

    The National Space Science Data Center is the official clearinghouse for
    NASA data. The data catalog (*not* the data itself) is available online.
    Internet users can telnet to nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (128.183.36.23) and
    log in as 'NODIS' (no password). You can also get the catalog by sending
    email to 'request@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov'.

    You can also dial in at (301)-286-9000 (300, 1200, or 2400 baud, 8 bits,
    no parity, one stop). At the "Enter Number:" prompt, enter MD and
    carriage return. When the system responds "Call Complete," enter a few
    more carriage returns to get the "Username:" and log in as 'NODIS' (no
    password).

    The system is menu-driven; topics available as of 3/93 are:

	1   -	Master Directory - NASA & Global Change
	2   -	Personnel Information Management System
	3   -	Nimbus-7 GRID TOMS Data
	4   -	Interplanetary Medium Data (OMNI)
	5   -	Request data and/or information from NSSDC
	6   -	Geophysical Models
	7   -	CANOPUS Newsletter
	8   -	International Ultraviolet Explorer Data Request
	9   -	CZCS Browse and Order Utility
	10  -	Astronomical Data Center (ADC)
	11  -	STEP Bulletin Board Service
	12  -	Standards and Technology Information System
	13  -	Planetary Science & Magellan Project Information
	14  -	Other Online Data Services at NSSDC
	15  -	CD-ROMS Available at NSSDC

    For users with Internet access, datasets are made available via
    anonymous FTP once you select the desired datasets from the online
    catalog. For other users, data may be ordered on CD-ROM and in other
    formats. Among the many types of data available are Voyager, Magellan,
    and other planetary images, Earth observation data, and star catalogs.
    Viewers for Macintosh and IBM systems are also available. As an example
    of the cost, an 8 CD set of Voyager images is $75. Data may ordered
    online, by email, or by physical mail. The postal address is:

	National Space Science Data Center
	Request Coordination Office
	Goddard Space Flight Center
	Code 633
	Greenbelt, MD  20771

	Telephone: (301) 286-6695

	Email address:	 request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov


    SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE

    stsci.edu (130.167.1.2) has a large amount of information about the
    Hubble Space Telescope available by anonymous FTP, such as status
    reports and newsletters, in addition to material oriented towards HST
    observers and proposers. Get the top level README file to begin with.
    Contact Pete Reppert (reppert@stsci.edu) or Chris O'Dea
    (odea@stsci.edu).


    STARCAT

    The Space Telescope European Coordination Facility, at ESO/Garching
    provides on-line access to a huge astronomical database, featuring

	- Observation log files of several satellites/telescopes
	    (IUE,IRAS,HST,NTT...).
	- Spectra and images (IUE, HST).
	- Most of the astronomical catalogues (SAO, HR, NGC, PPM, IRAS,
	    Veron, GSC and many others, more than 50) in a very convenient
	    way (give center+radius+kind of objects, and you get the
	    corresponding files!).

    Log on as ``starcat'' (no password) on node stesis.hq.eso.org
    (134.171.8.100) or on STESIS (DECnet). The files created can be
    retreived by FTP. Contact: Benoit Pirenne, bpirenne@eso.org (phone +49
    89 320 06 433) at ST-ECF


    ASTRONOMICAL DATABASES

    The full SAO stellar database is *NOT* available online, probably due to
    the 40 MB size. It may be ordered on magnetic tape from the NSSDC. A
    subset containing position and magnitude only is available by FTP (see
    "Astronomy Programs" below).

    nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) has a large collection of astronomical
    programs for many types of computers, databases of stars and deep sky
    objects, and general astronomy information in directory /pub/astro. This
    site is mainly for European users, but overseas connections are
    possible.

    The Ames archives contain a database of 8,436 galaxies including name,
    RA, declination, magnitude, and radial velocity in MISC/galaxy.dat.
    Supplied by Wayne Hayes (wayne@csri.utoronto.ca).

    iris1.ucis.dal.ca (129.173.18.107) has a number of GIFs from Voyager,
    Hubble, and other sources available by anonymous FTP in pub/gif (most of
    this data is also in SPACE/GIF on the Ames server). Please restrict
    access to 5pm - 8am Atlantic time.

    pomona.claremont.edu has the Yale Bright Star catalog for anonymous FTP
    in directory [.YALE_BSC]. Contact James Dishaw
    (jdishaw@hmcvax.claremont.edu).

    The Hubble Guide Star catalog is available on CD-ROM for the Mac and PC
    for $49.95 US (catalog # ST101).

	Astronomical Society of the Pacific
	390 Ashton Ave.
	San Francisco, CA 94112
	Phone: (415) 337-2624 9 AM - 3 PM Pacific Time
	FAX: (415) 337-5205

    For German (and possibly other European) readers, Jost Jahn has a
    service to distribute astronomical data to interested amateurs at cost.
    About 30-40 catalogs are available for DM 6..8/disk. Several floppy disk
    formats are available. Because of the expense of receiving email on his
    system, he asks that you contact him by physical mail:

	Jost Jahn
	Neustaedter Strasse 11
	W-3123 Bodenteich
	GERMANY
	Phone: FRG-5824-3197


    ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS

    Various astronomy-related programs and databases posted to the net in
    the past are archived for anonymous FTP at multiple sites, including
    ftp.uu.net (137.39.1.9). Also see the ASTRO-FTP list posted to sci.astro
    monthly, which is more complete than this list.

    Astonomical/Space-related sources of interest in comp.sources.unix:

    Volume 8:	    phoon	moon phase and date routines
    Volume 12,13:   starchart	starchart program & Yale Star data
    Volume 15:	    moontool	shows moon phase picture on Suns
    Volume 16:	    sao		reduced SAO catalog

    Astonomical/Space-related sources of interest in comp.sources.misc:

    Volume  8:	    moon	another moon phase program
    Volume 11:	    starchart	starchart program, version 3.2
    Volume 11:	    n3emo-orbit orbit: track earth satellites
    Volume 12:	    starchart2	starchart program, update to version 3.2.1
    Volume 13:	    jupmoons	plotter for Jupiter's major moons [in perl]
    Volume 13:	    lunisolar	lunisolar (not sure what this does)
    Volume 14:	    ephem-4.21	astronomical ephemeris, v4.21
    Volume 14:	    n3emo-orbit patch to orbit 3.7
    Volume 18:	    planet	planet generation simulator

    Elwood Downey (e_downey@tasha.cca.cr.rockwell.com), the author of
    "ephem", has offered to mail copies to people who can't find it on one
    of the archives.

    XSAT, an X Window System based satellite tracking program, is
    available by anonymous FTP from export.lcs.mit.edu (18.24.0.12) in
    contrib/xsat1.0.tar.Z. Contact Dave Curry (davy@ecn.purdue.edu)
    for more information.

    Xsky, a computerized sky atlas for the X Window System, is available for
    anonymous FTP on arizona.edu in the directory [.SOFTWARE.UNIX.XSKY] as
    xsky.tarz. Contact Terry R. Friedrichsen (terry@venus.sunquest.com) for
    more information.

    The "Variable Stars Analysis Software Archive" is available via
    anonymous FTP from kauri.vuw.ac.nz (130.195.11.3) in directory
    pub/astrophys. This is intended for specialists in this field, and they
    would appreciate people from outside New Zealand confining their FTP
    access to the astrophys directory, as they pay a significant amount for
    Internet access. Contents are relatively sparse at present due to the
    youth of the archive - contributions are encouraged. Contact the archive
    administrator, Timothy Banks (bankst@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) for more
    information.

    The "IDL Astronomy Users Library" is available by anonymous FTP from
    idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov (128.183.57.82). This is a central repository for
    general purpose astronomy procedures written in IDL, a commercial image
    processing, plotting, and programming language. Contact Wayne Landsman
    (landsman@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov) for more information.


    ORBITAL ELEMENT SETS

    The most recent orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
    carried on the Celestial BBS, (513)-427-0674. Documentation and tracking
    software are also available on this system. The Celestial BBS may be
    accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1
    stop bit, no parity.

    Orbital element sets are available via anonymous FTP from the
    following sites:

    archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66)	    NASA,TVRO,Shuttle
    directory: /pub/space

    ftp.funet.fi (128.214.6.100)	    NASA,TVRO,Molczan,CelBBS,
    directory: /pub/astro/pc/satel	    Shuttle (*)

    kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.1.165)     NASA,Molczan
    directory: /pub/space/


    SPACE DIGEST ARCHIVES

    Copies of back issues of Space Digest are archived on
    LISTSERV@UGA.BITNET. Send mail containing the message "INDEX SPACE" to
    get an index of files; send it the message "GET filename filetype" to
    get a particular file.


LANDSAT AND NASA PHOTOS

    You can get black-and-white 1:1M prints, negatives, or positives for
    $10, $18, $12 respectively for any Landsat data more than 2 years old
    from EDC, (Eros (Earth Resources Orbiting Satellite) Data Center). Call
    them at (605)-594-6511. You get 80 meter resolution from the MSS
    scanner, 135x180 kilometers on a picture 135x180 mm in size. I think you
    have to select one band from (green, red, near IR, second near IR), but
    I'm not sure. Digitial data is also available at higher prices.

    Transparencies of all NASA photos available to the public can be
    borrowed from the NASA photo archive; you can have copies or prints
    made.

	 NASA Audio-Visual Facility
	 918 North Rengstorff Ave
	 Mountain View, CA  94043
	 (415)-604-6270


PLANETARY MAPS

    The USGS address for maps of the planets is:

    U.S. Geological Survey,
    Distribution Branch,
    Box 25286, Federal Center, Bldg. 41
    Denver, CO 80225

    Maps cost $2.40 to $3.10 per sheet (a few come in sets of 2 or 3 sheets).

    The best global maps of Mars based on Viking images are 1:15,000,000
    scale in 3 sheets. These maps are:

    I-1535 (2 sheets only) - relief, albedo, names
    I-1535
    I-1618 (3 sheets) - relief, names
    I-2030 (3 sheets) - relief, topographic contours
    I-1802-A,B,C (3 sheets) - geology

    There are many other maps as well: 30 sheets at 1:5,000,000 scale in
    relief, albedo, geology, photomosaic forms (not all 30 sheets available
    in all formats); 140 sheets at 1:2,000,000 scale as photomosaics of the
    whole planet, about 100 sheets of interesting sites at 1:500,000 scale
    in photomosaic format, and lots of special sheets.

    Then there are maps of Mercury, Venus, the Moon, the four Galilean
    Satellites, six moons of Saturn and five of Uranus. [Phil Stooke
    (stooke@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca), the author of this item, has offered to
    respond to email requests for information on any topic relating to lunar
    and planetary maps.]


COMETARY ORBIT DATA

    The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams and the Minor Planet
    Center announce the sixth edition of the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits in
    IAU Circular 4935. The catalogue contains 1292 entries which represent
    all known comets through November 1989 and is 96 pages long.
    Non-subscribers to the Circulars may purchase the catalogue for $15.00
    while the cost to subscribers is $7.50. The basic catalogue in ASCII
    along with a program to extract specific orbits and calculate
    ephemerides is available on MS-DOS 5.25-inch 2S2D diskette at a cost of
    $75.00 (the program requires an 8087 math coprocessor). The catalogue
    alone is also available by e-mail for $37.50 or on magnetic tape for
    $300.00.

    Except for the printed version of the catalogue, the various magnetic
    media or e-mail forms of the catalogue do not specifically meantion
    non-subscribers. It is possible that these forms of the catalogue may
    not be available to non-subscribers or that their prices may be more
    expensive than those given. Mail requests for specific information and
    orders to:

	Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
	Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
	Cambridge, MA 02138, USA


NEXT: FAQ #4/15 - Performing calculations and interpreting data formats

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59874
Subject: Space FAQ 05/15 - References
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)

Archive-name: space/references
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:21 $

REFERENCES ON SPECIFIC AREAS

    PUBLISHERS OF SPACE/ASTRONOMY MATERIAL

    Astronomical Society of the Pacific
    1290 24th Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94122

	More expensive but better organized slide sets.

    Cambridge University Press
    32 East 57th Street
    New York, NY 10022

    Crawford-Peters Aeronautica
    P.O. Box 152528
    San Diego, CA 92115
    (619) 287-3933

	An excellent source of all kinds of space publications. They publish
	a number of catalogs, including:
	    Aviation and Space, 1945-1962
	    Aviation and Space, 1962-1990
	    Space and Related Titles

    European Southern Observatory
    Information and Photographic Service
    Dr R.M. West
    Karl Scharzschild Strasse 2
    D-8046 Garching bei Munchen
    FRG

	Slide sets, posters, photographs, conference proceedings.

    Finley Holiday Film Corporation
    12607 East Philadelphia Street
    Whittier, California 90601
    (213)945-3325
    (800)FILMS-07

	Wide selection of Apollo, Shuttle, Viking, and Voyager slides at ~50
	cents/slide. Call for a catalog.

    Hansen Planetarium (Utah)

	Said to hold sales on old slide sets. Look in Sky & Telescope
	for contact info.

    Lunar and Planetary Institute
    3303 NASA Road One
    Houston, TX 77058-4399

	Technical, geology-oriented slide sets, with supporting
	booklets.

    John Wiley & Sons
    605 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10158-0012

    Sky Publishing Corporation
    PO Box 9111
    Belmont, MA  02178-9111

	Offers "Sky Catalogue 2000.0" on PC floppy with information
	(including parallax) for 45000 stars.

    Roger Wheate
    Geography Dept.
    University of Calgary, Alberta
    Canada T2N 1N4
    (403)-220-4892
    (403)-282-7298 (FAX)
    wheate@uncamult.bitnet

	Offers a 40-slide set called "Mapping the Planets" illustrating
	recent work in planetary cartography, comes with a booklet and
	information on getting your own copies of the maps. $50 Canadian,
	shipping included.

    Superintendent of Documents
    US Government Printing Office
    Washington, DC 20402

    Univelt, Inc.
    P. O. Box 28130
    San Diego, Ca. 92128

	Publishers for the American Astronomical Society.

    US Naval Observatory
	202-653-1079 (USNO Bulletin Board via modem)
	202-653-1507 General

    Willmann-Bell
    P.O. Box 35025
    Richmond, Virginia 23235 USA
    (804)-320-7016 9-5 EST M-F


    CAREERS IN THE SPACE INDUSTRY

    In 1990 the Princeton Planetary Society published the first edition of
    "Space Jobs: The Guide to Careers in Space-Related Fields." The
    publication was enormously successful: we distributed 2000 copies to
    space enthusiasts across the country and even sent a few to people in
    Great Britain, Australia, and Ecuador. Due to the tremendous response to
    the first edition, PPS has published an expanded, up-to-date second
    edition of the guide.

    The 40-page publication boasts 69 listings for summer and full-time job
    opportunities as well as graduate school programs. The second edition of
    "Space Jobs" features strategies for entering the space field and
    describes positions at consulting and engineering firms, NASA, and
    non-profit organizations. The expanded special section on graduate
    schools highlights a myriad of programs ranging from space manufacturing
    to space policy. Additional sections include tips on becoming an
    astronaut and listings of NASA Space Grant Fellowships and Consortia, as
    well as NASA Centers for the Commercial Development of Space.

    To order send check or money order made payable to Princeton Planetary
    Society for $4 per copy, plus $1 per copy for shipping and handling
    (non-US customers send an International Money Order payable in US
    dollars) to:

    Princeton Planetary Society
    315 West College
    Princeton University
    Princeton, NJ  08544


    DC-X SINGLE-STAGE TO ORBIT (SSTO) PROGRAM

    SDI's SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) project has funded a
    suborbital technology demonstrator called DC-X that should fly in
    mid-1993. Further development towards an operational single-stage to
    orbit vehicle (called Delta Clipper) is uncertain at present.

    An collection of pictures and files relating to DC-X is available by
    anonymous FTP or email server in the directory

	bongo.cc.utexas.edu:pub/delta-clipper

    Chris W. Johnson (chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu) maintains the archive.


    HOW TO NAME A STAR AFTER A PERSON

    Official names are decided by committees of the International
    Astronomical Union, and are not for sale. There are purely commercial
    organizations which will, for a fee, send you pretty certificates and
    star maps describing where to find "your" star. These organizations have
    absolutely no standing in the astronomical community and the names they
    assign are not used by anyone else. It's also likely that you won't be
    able to see "your" star without binoculars or a telescope. See the back
    pages of Astronomy or other amateur astronomy publications for contact
    info; one such organization may be found at:

	International Star Registry
	34523 Wilson Road
	Ingleside, IL 60041

    This is not an endorsement of ISR.


    LLNL "GREAT EXPLORATION"

    The LLNL "Great Exploration", a plan for an on-the-cheap space station,
    Lunar base, and Mars mission using inflatable space structures, excited
    a lot of interest on the net and still comes up from time to time. Some
    references cited during net discussion were:

	Avation Week Jan 22, 1990 for an article on the overall Great
	Exploration

	NASA Assessment of the LLNL Space Exploration Proposal and LLNL
	Responses by Dr. Lowell Wood LLNL Doc. No. SS 90-9. Their address
	is: PO Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 (the NASA authors are unknown).

	Briefing slides of a presentation to the NRC last December may be
	available. Write LLNL and ask.

	Conceptual Design Study for Modular Inflatable Space Structures, a
	final report for purchase order B098747 by ILC Dover INC. I don't
	know how to get this except from LLNL or ILC Dover. I don't have an
	address for ILC.


    LUNAR PROSPECTOR

    Lunar Exploration Inc. (LEI) is a non-profit corporation working on a
    privately funded lunar polar orbiter. Lunar Prospector is designed to
    perform a geochemical survey and search for frozen volatiles at the
    poles. A set of reference files describing the project is available in

	ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/LEI/*


    LUNAR SCIENCE AND ACTIVITIES

    Grant H Heiken, David T Vaniman, and Bevan M French (editors), "Lunar
    Sourcebook, A User's Guide to the Moon", Cambridge University Press
    1991, ISBN 0-521-33444-6; hardcover; expensive. A one-volume
    encyclopedia of essentially everything known about the Moon, reviewing
    current knowledge in considerable depth, with copious references. Heavy
    emphasis on geology, but a lot more besides, including considerable
    discussion of past lunar missions and practical issues relevant to
    future mission design. *The* reference book for the Moon; all others are
    obsolete.

    Wendell Mendell (ed), "Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st
    Century", $15. "Every serious student of lunar bases *must* have this
    book" - Bill Higgins. Available from:

	Lunar and Planetary Institute
	3303 NASA Road One
	Houston, TX 77058-4399
	If you want to order books, call (713)486-2172.

    Thomas A. Mutch, "Geology of the Moon: A Stratigraphic View", Princeton
    University Press, 1970. Information about the Lunar Orbiter missions,
    including maps of the coverage of the lunar nearside and farside by
    various Orbiters.


    ORBITING EARTH SATELLITE HISTORIES

    A list of Earth orbiting satellites (that are still in orbit) is
    available by anonymous FTP in:

	ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/Satellites


    SPACECRAFT MODELS

    "Space in Miniature #2: Gemini" by
	Michael J. Mackowski
	1621 Waterwood Lane, St. Louis, MO 63146
	$7.50

    Only 34pp but enough pictures & diagrams to interest more than just the
    modelling community, I feel.

    Marco's Miniatures of Dracut, Mass. have produced a 1/144 Skylab in an
    edition of 500 & a 1/48 Lunar Rover (same scale as Monogram and Revell
    Lunar Modules) in a similar edition. Prices are $45 for Skylab, $24 for
    LRV. Check with them for postage etc. I have no connection with them,
    but have found their service to be good and their stock of rare/old kits
    *is* impressive. Prices range from reasonable ($35 for Monogram 1/32
    scale Apollo CSM with cutaway details) to spectacular ($145 for Airfix
    Vostok).

	 Four Star Collectibles
	 P.O. Box 658
	 Dracut Mass 01826, USA.
	 (508)-957-0695.

    Voyager, HST, Viking, Lunar Rover etc. kits from:

	Lunar Models
	5120 Grisham
	Rowlett, Texas 75088
	(214)-475-4230

    As reviewed by Bob Kaplow:

	Peter Alway's book "Scale Model Rocketry" is now available. Mine
	arrived in the mail earlier this week. To get your own copy, send
	$19.95 + $2.50 s/h ($22.45 total) to:

			Peter Alway
			2830 Pittsfield
			Ann Arbor, MI 48104

	The book includes information on collecting scale data, construction
	of scale models, and several handy tables. Appendicies include plans
	for 3 sport scale models, a 1:9.22 D Region Tomahawk (BT50), a 1/40
	V-2 (BT60), and a 1/9.16 Aerobee 150A (BT55/60).

	I've only begun to study the book, but it certainly will be a
	valuable data source for many modellers. Most vehicles include
	several paragraphs of text describing the missions flown by the
	rocket, various specs including "NAR" engine classification, along
	with a dimensioned drawing, color layouts & paint pattern, and a
	black & white photograph.

	The vehicles included are the Aerobee 150A, Aerobee 300, Aerobee Hi,
	Arcas, Asp, Astrobee 1500, Astrobee D, Atlas Centaur, Atlas-Agena,
	Atlas-Score, Baby WAC, D-Region Tomahawk, Deacon Rockoon, Delta B,
	Delta E, Gemini-Titan II, Iris, Javelin, Juno 1, Juno 2, Little Joe
	1, Little Joe 2, Mercury-Atlas, Mercury-Redstone, Nike-Apache,
	Nike-Asp, Nike-Cajun, Nike-Deacon, Nike-Tomahawk, RAM B, Saturn 1
	Block 1, Saturn 1 Block 2, Saturn 1B, Saturn 5, Scout, Standard
	Aerobee, Terrapin, Thor-Able, Titan III C, Titan III E, Trailblazer
	1, V-2, Vanguard, Viking Model 1, Viking Model 2, and Wac Corporal.


    ROCKET PROPULSION

	George P. Sutton, "Rocket Propulsion Elements", 5th edn,
	Wiley-Interscience 1986, ISBN 0-471-80027-9. Pricey textbook. The
	best (nearly the only) modern introduction to the technical side of
	rocketry. A good place to start if you want to know the details. Not
	for the math-shy. Straight chemical rockets, essentially nothing on
	more advanced propulsion (although earlier editions reportedly had
	some coverage).

	Dieter K. Huzel and David H. Huang, "Design of Liquid Propellant
	Rocket Engines", NASA SP-125.
	NTIS N71-29405		PC A20/MF A01	1971  461p
	Out of print; reproductions may be obtained through the NTIS
	(expensive). The complete and authoritative guide to designing
	liquid-fuel engines. Reference #1 in most chapters of Sutton. Heavy
	emphasis on practical issues, what works and what doesn't, what the
	typical values of the fudge factors are. Stiff reading, massive
	detail; written for rocket engineers by rocket engineers.


    SPACECRAFT DESIGN

	Brij N. Agrawal, "Design of Geosynchronous Spacecraft",
	Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-200114-4.

	James R. Wertz ed, "Spacecraft Attitude Determination and
	Control", Kluwer, ISBN 90-277-1204-2.

	P.R.K. Chetty, "Satellite Technology and its Applications",
	McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-8306-9688-1.

	James R. Wertz and Wiley J. Larson (editors), "Space Mission
	Analysis and Design", Kluwer Academic Publishers
	(Dordrecht/Boston/London) 1991, ISBN 0-7923-0971-5 (paperback), or
	0-7923-0970-7 (hardback).

	    This looks at system-level design of a spacecraft, rather than
	    detailed design. 23 chapters, 4 appendices, about 430 pages. It
	    leads the reader through the mission design and system-level
	    design of a fictitious earth-observation satellite, to
	    illustrate the principles that it tries to convey. Warning:
	    although the book is chock-full of many useful reference tables,
	    some of the numbers in at least one of those tables (launch
	    costs for various launchers) appear to be quite wrong. Can be
	    ordered by telephone, using a credit card; Kluwer's phone number
	    is (617)-871-6600. Cost $34.50.


    ESOTERIC PROPULSION SCHEMES (SOLAR SAILS, LASERS, FUSION...)

    This needs more and more up-to-date references, but it's a start.

    ANTIMATTER:

	"Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion", Robert Forward
	    AFRPL TR-85-034 from the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
	    (AFRPL/XRX, Stop 24, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523-5000).
	    NTIS AD-A160 734/0	   PC A10/MF A01
	    PC => Paper copy, A10 => $US57.90 -- or maybe Price Code?
	    MF => MicroFiche, A01 => $US13.90

	    Technical study on making, holding, and using antimatter for
	    near-term (30-50 years) propulsion systems. Excellent
	    bibliography. Forward is the best-known proponent
	    of antimatter.

	    This also may be available as UDR-TR-85-55 from the contractor,
	    the University of Dayton Research Institute, and DTIC AD-A160
	    from the Defense Technical Information Center, Defense Logistics
	    Agency, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22304-6145. And it's
	    also available from the NTIS, with yet another number.

	"Advanced Space Propulsion Study, Antiproton and Beamed Power
	    Propulsion", Robert Forward

	    AFAL TR-87-070 from the Air Force Astronautics Laboratory, DTIC
	    #AD-A189 218.
	    NTIS AD-A189 218/1	  PC A10/MF A01

	    Summarizes the previous paper, goes into detail on beamed power
	    systems including " 1) pellet, microwave, and laser beamed power
	    systems for intersteller transport; 2) a design for a
	    near-relativistic laser-pushed lightsail using near-term laser
	    technology; 3) a survey of laser thermal propulsion, tether
	    transportation systems, antiproton annihilation propulsion,
	    exotic applications of solar sails, and laser-pushed
	    interstellar lightsails; 4) the status of antiproton
	    annihilation propulsion as of 1986; and 5) the prospects for
	    obtaining antimatter ions heavier than antiprotons." Again,
	    there is an extensive bibliography.

	    "Application of Antimatter - Electric Power to Interstellar
	    Propulsion", G. D. Nordley, JBIS Interstellar Studies issue of
	    6/90.

    BUSSARD RAMJETS AND RELATED METHODS:

	G. L. Matloff and A. J. Fennelly, "Interstellar Applications and
	Limitations of Several Electrostatic/Electromagnetic Ion Collection
	Techniques", JBIS 30 (1977):213-222

	N. H. Langston, "The Erosion of Interstellar Drag Screens", JBIS 26
	(1973): 481-484

	C. Powell, "Flight Dynamics of the Ram-Augmented Interstellar
	Rocket", JBIS 28 (1975):553-562

	A. R. Martin, "The Effects of Drag on Relativistic Spacefight", JBIS
	25 (1972):643-652

    FUSION:

	"A Laser Fusion Rocket for Interplanetary Propulsion", Roderick Hyde,
	LLNL report UCRL-88857. (Contact the Technical Information Dept. at
	Livermore)

	    Fusion Pellet design: Fuel selection. Energy loss mechanisms.
	    Pellet compression metrics. Thrust Chamber: Magnetic nozzle.
	    Shielding. Tritium breeding. Thermal modeling. Fusion Driver
	    (lasers, particle beams, etc): Heat rejection. Vehicle Summary:
	    Mass estimates. Vehicle Performance: Interstellar travel
	    required exhaust velocities at the limit of fusion's capability.
	    Interplanetary missions are limited by power/weight ratio.
	    Trajectory modeling. Typical mission profiles. References,
	    including the 1978 report in JBIS, "Project Daedalus", and
	    several on ICF and driver technology.

	"Fusion as Electric Propulsion", Robert W. Bussard, Journal of
	Propulsion and Power, Vol. 6, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1990

	    Fusion rocket engines are analyzed as electric propulsion
	    systems, with propulsion thrust-power-input-power ratio (the
	    thrust-power "gain" G(t)) much greater than unity. Gain values
	    of conventional (solar, fission) electric propulsion systems are
	    always quite small (e.g., G(t)<0.8). With these, "high-thrust"
	    interplanetary flight is not possible, because system
	    acceleration (a(t)) capabilities are always less than the local
	    gravitational acceleration. In contrast, gain values 50-100
	    times higher are found for some fusion concepts, which offer
	    "high-thrust" flight capability. One performance example shows a
	    53.3 day (34.4 powered; 18.9 coast), one-way transit time with
	    19% payload for a single-stage Earth/Mars vehicle. Another shows
	    the potential for high acceleration (a(t)=0.55g(o)) flight in
	    Earth/moon space.

	"The QED Engine System: Direct Electric Fusion-Powered Systems for
	Aerospace Flight Propulsion" by Robert W. Bussard, EMC2-1190-03,
	available from Energy/Matter Conversion Corp., 9100 A. Center
	Street, Manassas, VA 22110.

	    [This is an introduction to the application of Bussard's version
	    of the Farnsworth/Hirsch electrostatic confinement fusion
	    technology to propulsion. 1500<Isp<5000 sec. Farnsworth/Hirsch
	    demonstrated a 10**10 neutron flux with their device back in
	    1969 but it was dropped when panic ensued over the surprising
	    stability of the Soviet Tokamak. Hirsch, responsible for the
	    panic, has recently recanted and is back working on QED. -- Jim
	    Bowery]

	"PLASMAKtm Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications", by
	Paul M. Koloc, Eight ANS Topical Meeting on Technology of Fusion
	Energy, special issue FUSION TECHNOLOGY, March 1989.

	    Aneutronic energy (fusion with little or negligible neutron
	    flux) requires plasma pressures and stable confinement times
	    larger than can be delivered by current approaches. If plasma
	    pressures appropriate to burn times on the order of milliseconds
	    could be achieved in aneutronic fuels, then high power densities
	    and very compact, realtively clean burning engines for space and
	    other special applications would be at hand. The PLASMAKtm
	    innovation will make this possible; its unique pressure
	    efficient structure, exceptional stability, fluid-mechanically
	    compressible Mantle and direct inductive MHD electric power
	    conversion advantages are described. Peak burn densities of tens
	    of megawats per cc give it compactness even in the
	    multi-gigawatt electric output size. Engineering advantages
	    indicate a rapid development schedule at very modest cost. [I
	    strongly recommend that people take this guy seriously. Bob
	    Hirsch, the primary proponent of the Tokamak, has recently
	    declared Koloc's PLASMAKtm precursor, the spheromak, to be one
	    of 3 promising fusion technologies that should be pursued rather
	    than Tokamak. Aside from the preceeding appeal to authority, the
	    PLASMAKtm looks like it finally models ball-lightning with solid
	    MHD physics. -- Jim Bowery]

    ION DRIVES:

	Retrieve files pub/SPACE/SPACELINK/6.5.2.* from the Ames SPACE
	archive; these deal with many aspects of ion drives and describe the
	SERT I and II missions, which flight-tested cesium ion thrusters in
	the 1960s and 70s. There are numerous references.

    MASS DRIVERS (COILGUNS, RAILGUNS):

	IEEE Transactions on Magnetics (for example, v. 27 no. 1, January
	1991 issue). Every so often they publish the proceedings of the
	Symposium on Electromagnetic Launcher Technology, including hundreds
	of papers on the subject. It's a good look at the state of the art,
	though perhaps not a good tutorial for beginners. Anybody know some
	good review papers?

    NUCLEAR ROCKETS (FISSION):

	"Technical Notes on Nuclear Rockets", by Bruce W. Knight and Donald
	Kingsbury, unpublished. May be available from: Donald Kingsbury,
	Math Dept., McGill University, PO Box 6070, Station A, Montreal,
	Quebec M3C 3G1 Canada.

    SOLAR SAILS:

	Starsailing. Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel. Louis Friedman,
	Wiley, New York, 1988, 146 pp., paper $9.95. (Not very technical,
	but an adequate overview.)

	"Roundtrip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-Pushed Lightsails
	(Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 21, pp. 187-95, Jan.-Feb.
	1984)

    TETHERS:

	_Tethers and Asteroids for Artificial Gravity Assist in the Solar
	System,_ by P.A. Penzo and H.L. Mayer., _Journal of Spacecraft
	and Rockets_ for Jan-Feb 1986.

	    Details how a spacecraft with a kevlar tether of the same mass
	    can change its velocity by up to slightly less than 1 km/sec. if
	    it is travelling under that velocity wrt a suitable asteroid.

    GENERAL:

	"Alternate Propulsion Energy Sources", Robert Forward
	    AFPRL TR-83-067.
	    NTIS AD-B088 771/1	  PC A07/MF A01   Dec 83 138p

	    Keywords: Propulsion energy, metastable helium, free-radical
	    hydrogen, solar pumped (sic) plasmas, antiproton annihiliation,
	    ionospheric lasers, solar sails, perforated sails, microwave
	    sails, quantum fluctuations, antimatter rockets... It's a wide,
	    if not deep, look at exotic energy sources which might be useful
	    for space propulsion. It also considers various kinds of laser
	    propulsion, metallic hydrogen, tethers, and unconventional
	    nuclear propulsion. The bibliographic information, pointing to
	    the research on all this stuff, belongs on every daydreamer's
	    shelf.

	Future Magic. Dr. Robert L. Forward, Avon, 1988. ISBN 0-380-89814-4.

	    Nontechnical discussion of tethers, antimatter, gravity control,
	    and even futher-out topics.


    SPY SATELLITES

    *Deep Black*, by William Burrows;
	"best modern general book for spysats."

    1) A Base For Debate: The US Satellite Station at Nurrungar, Des Ball,
    Allen and Unwin Australia, 1987 ISBN 0 04 355027 4 [ covers DSP early
    warning satellites]

    2) Pine Gap: Australia and the US Geostationary Signals intelligence
    satellite program, Des Ball, Allen and Unwin Australia, 1988 ISBN 0 04
    363002 5. [covers RHYOLITE/AQUACADE, CHALET/VORTEX, and MAGNUM signals
    intelligence satellites]

    3) Guardians: Strategic Reconnaissance Satellites, Curtis Peebles, 1987,
    Ian Allan, ISBN 0 7110 17654 [ good on MOL, military Salyut and Soviet
    satellites, less so on others. Tends to believe what he's told so flaws
    in discussion of DSP, RHYOLITE et al..]

    4) America's Secret Eyes In Space: The Keyhole Spy Satellite Program,
    Jeffrey Richelson, 1990, Harper and Row, ISBN 0 88730 285 8 [ in a class
    of its own, *the* historical reference on the KEYHOLE satellites]

    5) Secret Sentries in Space, Philip J Klass, 1971.
	"long out of print but well worth a look"


    SPACE SHUTTLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS

    %J Communications of the ACM
    %V 27
    %N 9
    %D September 1984
    %K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers

    %A Myron Kayton
    %T Avionics for Manned Spacecraft
    %J IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
    %V 25
    %N 6
    %D November 1989
    %P 786-827

    Other various AIAA and IEEE publications.

    Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience
    James E.  Tomayko
    1988?


    SETI COMPUTATION (SIGNAL PROCESSING)

    %A D. K. Cullers
    %A Ivan R. Linscott
    %A Bernard M. Oliver
    %T Signal Processing in SETI
    %J Communications of the ACM
    %V 28
    %N 11
    %D November 1984
    %P 1151-1163
    %K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]:
    Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]:
    Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]:
    astronomy
    General Terms: Design
    Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms,
    finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications,
    Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection,
    spectrum analysis


    AMATEUR SATELLIES & WEATHER SATELLITES

    A fairly long writeup on receiving and interpreting weather satellite
    photos is available from the Ames SPACE archive in
    pub/SPACE/FAQ/WeatherPhotos.

    The American Radio Relay League publication service offers the following
    references (also see the section on AMSAT in the space groups segment of
    the FAQ):

	ARRL Satellite Experimenters Handbook,		#3185, $20
	ARRL Weather Satellite Handbook,		#3193, $20
	IBM-PC software for Weather Satellite Handbook, #3290, $10

	AMSAT NA 5th Space Symposium,			#0739, $12
	AMSAT NA 6th Space Symposium,			#2219, $12

	Shipping is extra.

    The American Radio Relay League
    Publications Department
    225 Main Street
    Newington, CT 06111
    (203)-666-1541


    TIDES

    Srinivas Bettadpur contributed a writeup on tides, available from the
    Ames SPACE archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/Tides. It covers the following
    areas:

	- 2-D Example of Tidal Deformation
	- Treatment of Tidal Fields in Practice
	- Long term evolution of the Earth-Moon system under tides

    The writeup refers to the following texts:

	"Geophysical Geodesy" by K. Lambeck
	"Tides of the planet Earth" by P. Melchior

NEXT: FAQ #6/15 - Constants and equations for calculations

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59904
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules

Archive-name: space/schedule
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:23 $

SPACE SHUTTLE ANSWERS, LAUNCH SCHEDULES, TV COVERAGE

    SHUTTLE LAUNCHINGS AND LANDINGS; SCHEDULES AND HOW TO SEE THEM

    Shuttle operations are discussed in the Usenet group sci.space.shuttle,
    and Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version
    of the shuttle manifest (launch dates and other information)
    periodically there. The manifest is also available from the Ames SPACE
    archive in SPACE/FAQ/manifest. The portion of his manifest formerly
    included in this FAQ has been removed; please refer to his posting or
    the archived copy. For the most up to date information on upcoming
    missions, call (407) 867-INFO (867-4636) at Kennedy Space Center.

    Official NASA shuttle status reports are posted to sci.space.news
    frequently.


    WHY DOES THE SHUTTLE ROLL JUST AFTER LIFTOFF?

    The following answer and translation are provided by Ken Jenks
    (kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov).

    The "Ascent Guidance and Flight Control Training Manual," ASC G&C 2102,
    says:

	"During the vertical rise phase, the launch pad attitude is
	commanded until an I-loaded V(rel) sufficient to assure launch tower
	clearance is achieved. Then, the tilt maneuver (roll program)
	orients the vehicle to a heads down attitude required to generate a
	negative q-alpha, which in turn alleviates structural loading. Other
	advantages with this attitude are performance gain, decreased abort
	maneuver complexity, improved S-band look angles, and crew view of
	the horizon. The tilt maneuver is also required to start gaining
	downrange velocity to achieve the main engine cutoff (MECO) target
	in second stage."

    This really is a good answer, but it's couched in NASA jargon. I'll try
    to interpret.

    1)	We wait until the Shuttle clears the tower before rolling.

    2)	Then, we roll the Shuttle around so that the angle of attack
	between the wind caused by passage through the atmosphere (the
	"relative wind") and the chord of the wings (the imaginary line
	between the leading edge and the trailing edge) is a slightly
	negative angle ("a negative q-alpha").	This causes a little bit of
	"downward" force (toward the belly of the Orbiter, or the +Z
	direction) and this force "alleviates structural loading."
	We have to be careful about those wings -- they're about the
	most "delicate" part of the vehicle.

    3)	The new attitude (after the roll) also allows us to carry more
	mass to orbit, or to achieve a higher orbit with the same mass, or
	to change the orbit to a higher or lower inclination than would be
	the case if we didn't roll ("performance gain").

    4)	The new attitude allows the crew to fly a less complicated
	flight path if they had to execute one of the more dangerous abort
	maneuvers, the Return To Launch Site ("decreased abort maneuver
	complexity").

    5)	The new attitude improves the ability for ground-based radio
	antennae to have a good line-of-sight signal with the S-band radio
	antennae on the Orbiter ("improved S-band look angles").

    6)	The new attitude allows the crew to see the horizon, which is a
	helpful (but not mandatory) part of piloting any flying machine.

    7)	The new attitude orients the Shuttle so that the body is
	more nearly parallel with the ground, and the nose to the east
	(usually).  This allows the thrust from the engines to add velocity
	in the correct direction to eventually achieve orbit.  Remember:
	velocity is a vector quantity made of both speed and direction.
	The Shuttle has to have a large horizontal component to its
	velocity and a very small vertical component to attain orbit.

    This all begs the question, "Why isn't the launch pad oriented to give
    this nice attitude to begin with?  Why does the Shuttle need to roll to
    achieve that attitude?"  The answer is that the pads were leftovers
    from the Apollo days.  The Shuttle straddles two flame trenches -- one
    for the Solid Rocket Motor exhaust, one for the Space Shuttle Main
    Engine exhaust.  (You can see the effects of this on any daytime
    launch.  The SRM exhaust is dirty gray garbage, and the SSME exhaust is
    fluffy white steam.  Watch for the difference between the "top"
    [Orbiter side] and the "bottom" [External Tank side] of the stack.) The
    access tower and other support and service structure are all oriented
    basically the same way they were for the Saturn V's.  (A side note: the
    Saturn V's also had a roll program.  Don't ask me why -- I'm a Shuttle
    guy.)

    I checked with a buddy in Ascent Dynamics.	He added that the "roll
    maneuver" is really a maneuver in all three axes: roll, pitch and yaw.
    The roll component of that maneuver is performed for the reasons
    stated.  The pitch component controls loading on the wings by keeping
    the angle of attack (q-alpha) within a tight tolerance.  The yaw
    component is used to determine the orbital inclination.  The total
    maneuver is really expressed as a "quaternion," a grad-level-math
    concept for combining all three rotation matrices in one four-element
    array.


    HOW TO RECEIVE THE NASA TV CHANNEL, NASA SELECT

    NASA SELECT is broadcast by satellite. If you have access to a satellite
    dish, you can find SELECT on Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72
    degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. F2R is stationed
    over the Atlantic, and is increasingly difficult to receive from
    California and points west. During events of special interest (e.g.
    shuttle missions), SELECT is sometimes broadcast on a second satellite
    for these viewers.

    If you can't get a satellite feed, some cable operators carry SELECT.
    It's worth asking if yours doesn't.

    The SELECT schedule is found in the NASA Headline News which is
    frequently posted to sci.space.news. Generally it carries press
    conferences, briefings by NASA officials, and live coverage of shuttle
    missions and planetary encounters. SELECT has recently begun carrying
    much more secondary material (associated with SPACELINK) when missions
    are not being covered.


    AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR SHUTTLE MISSIONS

    The following are believed to rebroadcast space shuttle mission audio:

	W6FXN  - Los Angeles
	K6MF   - Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California
	WA3NAN - Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland.
	W5RRR  - Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, Texas
	W6VIO  - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, California.
	W1AW Voice Bulletins

	Station    VHF	   10m	   15m	   20m	  40m	 80m
	------	 ------  ------  ------  ------  -----	-----
	W6FXN	 145.46
	K6MF	 145.585			 7.165	3.840
	WA3NAN	 147.45  28.650  21.395  14.295  7.185	3.860
	W5RRR	 146.64  28.400  21.350  14.280  7.227	3.850
	W6VIO	 224.04		 21.340  14.270
	W6VIO	 224.04		 21.280  14.282  7.165	3.840
	W1AW		 28.590  21.390  14.290  7.290	3.990

    W5RRR transmits mission audio on 146.64, a special event station on the
    other frequencies supplying Keplerian Elements and mission information.

    W1AW also transmits on 147.555, 18.160. No mission audio but they
    transmit voice bulletins at 0245 and 0545 UTC.

    Frequencies in the 10-20m bands require USB and frequencies in the 40
    and 80m bands LSB. Use FM for the VHF frequencies.

    [This item was most recently updated courtesy of Gary Morris
    (g@telesoft.com, KK6YB, N5QWC)]


    SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER FUEL COMPOSITION

    Reference: "Shuttle Flight Operations Manual" Volume 8B - Solid Rocket
    Booster Systems, NASA Document JSC-12770

    Propellant Composition (percent)

    Ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer)			69.6
    Aluminum						16
    Iron Oxide (burn rate catalyst)			0.4
    Polybutadiene-acrilic acid-acrylonitrile (a rubber) 12.04
    Epoxy curing agent					1.96

    End reference

    Comment: The aluminum, rubber, and epoxy all burn with the oxidizer.

NEXT: FAQ #10/15 - Historical planetary probes

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59905
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 10/15 - Planetary Probe History

Archive-name: space/probe
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:19 $

PLANETARY PROBES - HISTORICAL MISSIONS

    This section was lightly adapted from an original posting by Larry Klaes
    (klaes@verga.enet.dec.com), mostly minor formatting changes. Matthew
    Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu) contributed the section on
    Voyager, and the section on Sakigake was obtained from ISAS material
    posted by Yoshiro Yamada (yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp).

US PLANETARY MISSIONS


    MARINER (VENUS, MARS, & MERCURY FLYBYS AND ORBITERS)

    MARINER 1, the first U.S. attempt to send a spacecraft to Venus, failed
    minutes after launch in 1962. The guidance instructions from the ground
    stopped reaching the rocket due to a problem with its antenna, so the
    onboard computer took control. However, there turned out to be a bug in
    the guidance software, and the rocket promptly went off course, so the
    Range Safety Officer destroyed it. Although the bug is sometimes claimed
    to have been an incorrect FORTRAN DO statement, it was actually a
    transcription error in which the bar (indicating smoothing) was omitted
    from the expression "R-dot-bar sub n" (nth smoothed value of derivative
    of radius). This error led the software to treat normal minor variations
    of velocity as if they were serious, leading to incorrect compensation.

    MARINER 2 became the first successful probe to flyby Venus in December
    of 1962, and it returned information which confirmed that Venus is a
    very hot (800 degrees Fahrenheit, now revised to 900 degrees F.) world
    with a cloud-covered atmosphere composed primarily of carbon dioxide
    (sulfuric acid was later confirmed in 1978).

    MARINER 3, launched on November 5, 1964, was lost when its protective
    shroud failed to eject as the craft was placed into interplanetary
    space. Unable to collect the Sun's energy for power from its solar
    panels, the probe soon died when its batteries ran out and is now in
    solar orbit. It was intended for a Mars flyby with MARINER 4.

    MARINER 4, the sister probe to MARINER 3, did reach Mars in 1965 and
    took the first close-up images of the Martian surface (22 in all) as it
    flew by the planet. The probe found a cratered world with an atmosphere
    much thinner than previously thought. Many scientists concluded from
    this preliminary scan that Mars was a "dead" world in both the
    geological and biological sense.

    MARINER 5 was sent to Venus in 1967. It reconfirmed the data on that
    planet collected five years earlier by MARINER 2, plus the information
    that Venus' atmospheric pressure at its surface is at least 90 times
    that of Earth's, or the equivalent of being 3,300 feet under the surface
    of an ocean.

    MARINER 6 and 7 were sent to Mars in 1969 and expanded upon the work
    done by MARINER 4 four years earlier. However, they failed to take away
    the concept of Mars as a "dead" planet, first made from the basic
    measurements of MARINER 4.

    MARINER 8 ended up in the Atlantic Ocean in 1971 when the rocket
    launcher autopilot failed.

    MARINER 9, the sister probe to MARINER 8, became the first craft to
    orbit Mars in 1971. It returned information on the Red Planet that no
    other probe had done before, revealing huge volcanoes on the Martian
    surface, as well as giant canyon systems, and evidence that water once
    flowed across the planet. The probe also took the first detailed closeup
    images of Mars' two small moons, Phobos and Deimos.

    MARINER 10 used Venus as a gravity assist to Mercury in 1974. The probe
    did return the first close-up images of the Venusian atmosphere in
    ultraviolet, revealing previously unseen details in the cloud cover,
    plus the fact that the entire cloud system circles the planet in four
    Earth days. MARINER 10 eventually made three flybys of Mercury from 1974
    to 1975 before running out of attitude control gas. The probe revealed
    Mercury as a heavily cratered world with a mass much greater than
    thought. This would seem to indicate that Mercury has an iron core which
    makes up 75 percent of the entire planet.


    PIONEER (MOON, SUN, VENUS, JUPITER, and SATURN FLYBYS AND ORBITERS)

    PIONEER 1 through 3 failed to meet their main objective - to photograph
    the Moon close-up - but they did reach far enough into space to provide
    new information on the area between Earth and the Moon, including new
    data on the Van Allen radiation belts circling Earth. All three craft
    had failures with their rocket launchers. PIONEER 1 was launched on
    October 11, 1958, PIONEER 2 on November 8, and PIONEER 3 on December 6.

    PIONEER 4 was a Moon probe which missed the Moon and became the first
    U.S. spacecraft to orbit the Sun in 1959. PIONEER 5 was originally
    designed to flyby Venus, but the mission was scaled down and it instead
    studied the interplanetary environment between Venus and Earth out to
    36.2 million kilometers in 1960, a record until MARINER 2. PIONEER 6
    through 9 were placed into solar orbit from 1965 to 1968: PIONEER 6, 7,
    and 8 are still transmitting information at this time. PIONEER E (would
    have been number 10) suffered a launch failure in 1969.

    PIONEER 10 became the first spacecraft to flyby Jupiter in 1973. PIONEER
    11 followed it in 1974, and then went on to become the first probe to
    study Saturn in 1979. Both vehicles should continue to function through
    1995 and are heading off into interstellar space, the first craft ever
    to do so.

    PIONEER Venus 1 (1978) (also known as PIONEER Venus Orbiter, or PIONEER
    12) burned up in the Venusian atmosphere on October 8, 1992. PVO made
    the first radar studies of the planet's surface via probe. PIONEER Venus
    2 (also known as PIONEER 13) sent four small probes into the atmosphere
    in December of 1978. The main spacecraft bus burned up high in the
    atmosphere, while the four probes descended by parachute towards the
    surface. Though none were expected to survive to the surface, the Day
    probe did make it and transmitted for 67.5 minutes on the ground before
    its batteries failed.


    RANGER (LUNAR LANDER AND IMPACT MISSIONS)

    RANGER 1 and 2 were test probes for the RANGER lunar impact series. They
    were meant for high Earth orbit testing in 1961, but rocket problems
    left them in useless low orbits which quickly decayed.

    RANGER 3, launched on January 26, 1962, was intended to land an
    instrument capsule on the surface of the Moon, but problems during the
    launch caused the probe to miss the Moon and head into solar orbit.
    RANGER 3 did try to take some images of the Moon as it flew by, but the
    camera was unfortunately aimed at deep space during the attempt.

    RANGER 4, launched April 23, 1962, had the same purpose as RANGER 3, but
    suffered technical problems enroute and crashed on the lunar farside,
    the first U.S. probe to reach the Moon, albeit without returning data.

    RANGER 5, launched October 18, 1962 and similar to RANGER 3 and 4, lost
    all solar panel and battery power enroute and eventually missed the Moon
    and drifted off into solar orbit.

    RANGER 6 through 9 had more modified lunar missions: They were to send
    back live images of the lunar surface as they headed towards an impact
    with the Moon. RANGER 6 failed this objective in 1964 when its cameras
    did not operate. RANGER 7 through 9 performed well, becoming the first
    U.S. lunar probes to return thousands of lunar images through 1965.


    LUNAR ORBITER (LUNAR SURFACE PHOTOGRAPHY)

    LUNAR ORBITER 1 through 5 were designed to orbit the Moon and image
    various sites being studied as landing areas for the manned APOLLO
    missions of 1969-1972. The probes also contributed greatly to our
    understanding of lunar surface features, particularly the lunar farside.
    All five probes of the series, launched from 1966 to 1967, were
    essentially successful in their missions. They were the first U.S.
    probes to orbit the Moon. All LOs were eventually crashed into the lunar
    surface to avoid interference with the manned APOLLO missions.


    SURVEYOR (LUNAR SOFT LANDERS)

    The SURVEYOR series were designed primarily to see if an APOLLO lunar
    module could land on the surface of the Moon without sinking into the
    soil (before this time, it was feared by some that the Moon was covered
    in great layers of dust, which would not support a heavy landing
    vehicle). SURVEYOR was successful in proving that the lunar surface was
    strong enough to hold up a spacecraft from 1966 to 1968.

    Only SURVEYOR 2 and 4 were unsuccessful missions. The rest became the
    first U.S. probes to soft land on the Moon, taking thousands of images
    and scooping the soil for analysis. APOLLO 12 landed 600 feet from
    SURVEYOR 3 in 1969 and returned parts of the craft to Earth. SURVEYOR 7,
    the last of the series, was a purely scientific mission which explored
    the Tycho crater region in 1968.


    VIKING (MARS ORBITERS AND LANDERS)

    VIKING 1 was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida on August 20, 1975 on
    a TITAN 3E-CENTAUR D1 rocket. The probe went into Martian orbit on June
    19, 1976, and the lander set down on the western slopes of Chryse
    Planitia on July 20, 1976. It soon began its programmed search for
    Martian micro-organisms (there is still debate as to whether the probes
    found life there or not), and sent back incredible color panoramas of
    its surroundings. One thing scientists learned was that Mars' sky was
    pinkish in color, not dark blue as they originally thought (the sky is
    pink due to sunlight reflecting off the reddish dust particles in the
    thin atmosphere). The lander set down among a field of red sand and
    boulders stretching out as far as its cameras could image.

    The VIKING 1 orbiter kept functioning until August 7, 1980, when it ran
    out of attitude-control propellant. The lander was switched into a
    weather-reporting mode, where it had been hoped it would keep
    functioning through 1994; but after November 13, 1982, an errant command
    had been sent to the lander accidentally telling it to shut down until
    further orders. Communication was never regained again, despite the
    engineers' efforts through May of 1983.

    An interesting side note: VIKING 1's lander has been designated the
    Thomas A. Mutch Memorial Station in honor of the late leader of the
    lander imaging team. The National Air and Space Museum in Washington,
    D.C. is entrusted with the safekeeping of the Mutch Station Plaque until
    it can be attached to the lander by a manned expedition.

    VIKING 2 was launched on September 9, 1975, and arrived in Martian orbit
    on August 7, 1976. The lander touched down on September 3, 1976 in
    Utopia Planitia. It accomplished essentially the same tasks as its
    sister lander, with the exception that its seisometer worked, recording
    one marsquake. The orbiter had a series of attitude-control gas leaks in
    1978, which prompted it being shut down that July. The lander was shut
    down on April 12, 1980.

    The orbits of both VIKING orbiters should decay around 2025.


    VOYAGER (OUTER PLANET FLYBYS)

    VOYAGER 1 was launched September 5, 1977, and flew past Jupiter on March
    5, 1979 and by Saturn on November 13, 1980. VOYAGER 2 was launched
    August 20, 1977 (before VOYAGER 1), and flew by Jupiter on August 7,
    1979, by Saturn on August 26, 1981, by Uranus on January 24, 1986, and
    by Neptune on August 8, 1989. VOYAGER 2 took advantage of a rare
    once-every-189-years alignment to slingshot its way from outer planet to
    outer planet. VOYAGER 1 could, in principle, have headed towards Pluto,
    but JPL opted for the sure thing of a Titan close up.

    Between the two probes, our knowledge of the 4 giant planets, their
    satellites, and their rings has become immense. VOYAGER 1&2 discovered
    that Jupiter has complicated atmospheric dynamics, lightning and
    aurorae. Three new satellites were discovered. Two of the major
    surprises were that Jupiter has rings and that Io has active sulfurous
    volcanoes, with major effects on the Jovian magnetosphere.

    When the two probes reached Saturn, they discovered over 1000 ringlets
    and 7 satellites, including the predicted shepherd satellites that keep
    the rings stable. The weather was tame compared with Jupiter: massive
    jet streams with minimal variance (a 33-year great white spot/band cycle
    is known). Titan's atmosphere was smoggy. Mimas' appearance was
    startling: one massive impact crater gave it the Death Star appearance.
    The big surprise here was the stranger aspects of the rings. Braids,
    kinks, and spokes were both unexpected and difficult to explain.

    VOYAGER 2, thanks to heroic engineering and programming efforts,
    continued the mission to Uranus and Neptune. Uranus itself was highly
    monochromatic in appearance. One oddity was that its magnetic axis was
    found to be highly skewed from the already completely skewed rotational
    axis, giving Uranus a peculiar magnetosphere. Icy channels were found on
    Ariel, and Miranda was a bizarre patchwork of different terrains. 10
    satellites and one more ring were discovered.

    In contrast to Uranus, Neptune was found to have rather active weather,
    including numerous cloud features. The ring arcs turned out to be bright
    patches on one ring. Two other rings, and 6 other satellites, were
    discovered. Neptune's magnetic axis was also skewed. Triton had a
    canteloupe appearance and geysers. (What's liquid at 38K?)

    The two VOYAGERs are expected to last for about two more decades. Their
    on-target journeying gives negative evidence about possible planets
    beyond Pluto. Their next major scientific discovery should be the
    location of the heliopause.


SOVIET PLANETARY MISSIONS

    Since there have been so many Soviet probes to the Moon, Venus, and
    Mars, I will highlight only the primary missions:


    SOVIET LUNAR PROBES

    LUNA 1 - Lunar impact attempt in 1959, missed Moon and became first
	     craft in solar orbit.
    LUNA 2 - First craft to impact on lunar surface in 1959.
    LUNA 3 - Took first images of lunar farside in 1959.
    ZOND 3 - Took first images of lunar farside in 1965 since LUNA 3. Was
	     also a test for future Mars missions.
    LUNA 9 - First probe to soft land on the Moon in 1966, returned images
	     from surface.
    LUNA 10 - First probe to orbit the Moon in 1966.
    LUNA 13 - Second successful Soviet lunar soft landing mission in 1966.
    ZOND 5 - First successful circumlunar craft. ZOND 6 through 8
	     accomplished similar missions through 1970. The probes were
	     unmanned tests of a manned orbiting SOYUZ-type lunar vehicle.
    LUNA 16 - First probe to land on Moon and return samples of lunar soil
	      to Earth in 1970. LUNA 20 accomplished similar mission in
	      1972.
    LUNA 17 - Delivered the first unmanned lunar rover to the Moon's
	      surface, LUNOKHOD 1, in 1970. A similar feat was accomplished
	      with LUNA 21/LUNOKHOD 2 in 1973.
    LUNA 24 - Last Soviet lunar mission to date. Returned soil samples in
	      1976.


    SOVIET VENUS PROBES

    VENERA 1 - First acknowledged attempt at Venus mission. Transmissions
	       lost enroute in 1961.
    VENERA 2 - Attempt to image Venus during flyby mission in tandem with
	       VENERA 3. Probe ceased transmitting just before encounter in
	       February of 1966. No images were returned.
    VENERA 3 - Attempt to place a lander capsule on Venusian surface.
	       Transmissions ceased just before encounter and entire probe
	       became the first craft to impact on another planet in 1966.
    VENERA 4 - First probe to successfully return data while descending
	       through Venusian atmosphere. Crushed by air pressure before
	       reaching surface in 1967. VENERA 5 and 6 mission profiles
	       similar in 1969.
    VENERA 7 - First probe to return data from the surface of another planet
	       in 1970. VENERA 8 accomplished a more detailed mission in
	       1972.
    VENERA 9 - Sent first image of Venusian surface in 1975. Was also the
	       first probe to orbit Venus. VENERA 10 accomplished similar
	       mission.
    VENERA 13 - Returned first color images of Venusian surface in 1982.
		VENERA 14 accomplished similar mission.
    VENERA 15 - Accomplished radar mapping with VENERA 16 of sections of
		planet's surface in 1983 more detailed than PVO.
    VEGA 1 - Accomplished with VEGA 2 first balloon probes of Venusian
	     atmosphere in 1985, including two landers. Flyby buses went on
	     to become first spacecraft to study Comet Halley close-up in
	     March of 1986.


    SOVIET MARS PROBES

    MARS 1 - First acknowledged Mars probe in 1962. Transmissions ceased
	     enroute the following year.
    ZOND 2 - First possible attempt to place a lander capsule on Martian
	     surface. Probe signals ceased enroute in 1965.
    MARS 2 - First Soviet Mars probe to land - albeit crash - on Martian
	     surface. Orbiter section first Soviet probe to circle the Red
	     Planet in 1971.
    MARS 3 - First successful soft landing on Martian surface, but lander
	     signals ceased after 90 seconds in 1971.
    MARS 4 - Attempt at orbiting Mars in 1974, braking rockets failed to
	     fire, probe went on into solar orbit.
    MARS 5 - First fully successful Soviet Mars mission, orbiting Mars in
	     1974. Returned images of Martian surface comparable to U.S.
	     probe MARINER 9.
    MARS 6 - Landing attempt in 1974. Lander crashed into the surface.
    MARS 7 - Lander missed Mars completely in 1974, went into a solar orbit
	     with its flyby bus.
    PHOBOS 1 - First attempt to land probes on surface of Mars' largest
	       moon, Phobos. Probe failed enroute in 1988 due to
	       human/computer error.
    PHOBOS 2 - Attempt to land probes on Martian moon Phobos. The probe did
	       enter Mars orbit in early 1989, but signals ceased one week
	       before scheduled Phobos landing.

    While there has been talk of Soviet Jupiter, Saturn, and even
    interstellar probes within the next thirty years, no major steps have
    yet been taken with these projects. More intensive studies of the Moon,
    Mars, Venus, and various comets have been planned for the 1990s, and a
    Mercury mission to orbit and land probes on the tiny world has been
    planned for 2003. How the many changes in the former Soviet Union (now
    the Commonwealth of Independent States) will affect the future of their
    space program remains to be seen.


JAPANESE PLANETARY MISSIONS

    SAKIGAKE (MS-T5) was launched from the Kagoshima Space Center by ISAS on
    January 8 1985, and approached Halley's Comet within about 7 million km
    on March 11, 1986. The spacecraft is carrying three instru- ments to
    measure interplanetary magnetic field/plasma waves/solar wind, all of
    which work normally now, so ISAS made an Earth swingby by Sakigake on
    January 8, 1992 into an orbit similar to the earth's. The closest
    approach was at 23h08m47s (JST=UTC+9h) on January 8, 1992. The
    geocentric distance was 88,997 km. This is the first planet-swingby for
    a Japanese spacecraft.

    During the approach, Sakigake observed the geotail. Some geotail
    passages will be scheduled in some years hence. The second Earth-swingby
    will be on June 14, 1993 (at 40 Re (Earth's radius)), and the third
    October 28, 1994 (at 86 Re).


    HITEN, a small lunar probe, was launched into Earth orbit on January 24,
    1990. The spacecraft was then known as MUSES-A, but was renamed to Hiten
    once in orbit. The 430 lb probe looped out from Earth and made its first
    lunary flyby on March 19, where it dropped off its 26 lb midget
    satellite, HAGOROMO. Japan at this point became the third nation to
    orbit a satellite around the Moon, joining the Unites States and USSR.

    The smaller spacecraft, Hagoromo, remained in orbit around the Moon. An
    apparently broken transistor radio caused the Japanese space scientists
    to lose track of it. Hagoromo's rocket motor fired on schedule on March
    19, but the spacecraft's tracking transmitter failed immediately. The
    rocket firing of Hagoromo was optically confirmed using the Schmidt
    camera (105-cm, F3.1) at the Kiso Observatory in Japan.

    Hiten made multiple lunar flybys at approximately monthly intervals and
    performed aerobraking experiments using the Earth's atmosphere. Hiten
    made a close approach to the moon at 22:33 JST (UTC+9h) on February 15,
    1992 at the height of 423 km from the moon's surface (35.3N, 9.7E) and
    fired its propulsion system for about ten minutes to put the craft into
    lunar orbit. The following is the orbital calculation results after the
    approach:

	Apoapsis Altitude: about 49,400 km
	Periapsis Altitude: about 9,600 km
	Inclination	: 34.7 deg (to ecliptic plane)
	Period		: 4.7 days


PLANETARY MISSION REFERENCES

    I also recommend reading the following works, categorized in three
    groups: General overviews, specific books on particular space missions,
    and periodical sources on space probes. This list is by no means
    complete; it is primarily designed to give you places to start your
    research through generally available works on the subject. If anyone can
    add pertinent works to the list, it would be greatly appreciated.

    Though naturally I recommend all the books listed below, I think it
    would be best if you started out with the general overview books, in
    order to give you a clear idea of the history of space exploration in
    this area. I also recommend that you pick up some good, up-to-date
    general works on astronomy and the Sol system, to give you some extra
    background. Most of these books and periodicals can be found in any good
    public and university library. Some of the more recently published works
    can also be purchased in and/or ordered through any good mass- market
    bookstore.

    General Overviews (in alphabetical order by author):

      J. Kelly Beatty et al, THE NEW SOLAR SYSTEM, 1990.

      Merton E. Davies and Bruce C. Murray, THE VIEW FROM SPACE:
       PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPLORATION OF THE PLANETS, 1971

      Kenneth Gatland, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE
       TECHNOLOGY, 1990

      Kenneth Gatland, ROBOT EXPLORERS, 1972

      R. Greeley, PLANETARY LANDSCAPES, 1987

      Douglas Hart, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, 1987

      Nicholas L. Johnson, HANDBOOK OF SOVIET LUNAR AND PLANETARY
       EXPLORATION, 1979

      Clayton R. Koppes, JPL AND THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM: A
       HISTORY OF THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, 1982

      Richard S. Lewis, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE
       UNIVERSE, 1983

      Mark Littman, PLANETS BEYOND: DISCOVERING THE OUTER SOLAR
       SYSTEM, 1988

      Eugene F. Mallove and Gregory L. Matloff, THE STARFLIGHT
       HANDBOOK: A PIONEER'S GUIDE TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, 1989

      Frank Miles and Nicholas Booth, RACE TO MARS: THE MARS
       FLIGHT ATLAS, 1988

      Bruce Murray, JOURNEY INTO SPACE, 1989

      Oran W. Nicks, FAR TRAVELERS, 1985 (NASA SP-480)

      James E. Oberg, UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS: EXPLORING THE
       LIMITS OF GLASNOST, 1988

      Carl Sagan, COMET, 1986

      Carl Sagan, THE COSMIC CONNECTION, 1973

      Carl Sagan, PLANETS, 1969 (LIFE Science Library)

      Arthur Smith, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED
       SPACE PROBES, 1988

      Andrew Wilson, (JANE'S) SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, 1987

    Specific Mission References:

      Charles A. Cross and Patrick Moore, THE ATLAS OF MERCURY, 1977
       (The MARINER 10 mission to Venus and Mercury, 1973-1975)

      Joel Davis, FLYBY: THE INTERPLANETARY ODYSSEY OF VOYAGER 2, 1987

      Irl Newlan, FIRST TO VENUS: THE STORY OF MARINER 2, 1963

      Margaret Poynter and Arthur L. Lane, VOYAGER: THE STORY OF A
       SPACE MISSION, 1984

      Carl Sagan, MURMURS OF EARTH, 1978 (Deals with the Earth
       information records placed on VOYAGER 1 and 2 in case the
       probes are found by intelligences in interstellar space,
       as well as the probes and planetary mission objectives
       themselves.)

    Other works and periodicals:

    NASA has published very detailed and technical books on every space
    probe mission it has launched. Good university libraries will carry
    these books, and they are easily found simply by knowing which mission
    you wish to read about. I recommend these works after you first study
    some of the books listed above.

    Some periodicals I recommend for reading on space probes are NATIONAL
    GEOGRAPHIC, which has written articles on the PIONEER probes to Earth's
    Moon Luna and the Jovian planets Jupiter and Saturn, the RANGER,
    SURVEYOR, LUNAR ORBITER, and APOLLO missions to Luna, the MARINER
    missions to Mercury, Venus, and Mars, the VIKING probes to Mars, and the
    VOYAGER missions to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

    More details on American, Soviet, European, and Japanese probe missions
    can be found in SKY AND TELESCOPE, ASTRONOMY, SCIENCE, NATURE, and
    SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazines. TIME, NEWSWEEK, and various major
    newspapers can supply not only general information on certain missions,
    but also show you what else was going on with Earth at the time events
    were unfolding, if that is of interest to you. Space missions are
    affected by numerous political, economic, and climatic factors, as you
    probably know.

    Depending on just how far your interest in space probes will go, you
    might also wish to join The Planetary Society, one of the largest space
    groups in the world dedicated to planetary exploration. Their
    periodical, THE PLANETARY REPORT, details the latest space probe
    missions. Write to The Planetary Society, 65 North Catalina Avenue,
    Pasadena, California 91106 USA.

    Good luck with your studies in this area of space exploration. I
    personally find planetary missions to be one of the more exciting areas
    in this field, and the benefits human society has and will receive from
    it are incredible, with many yet to be realized.

    Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com

NEXT: FAQ #11/15 - Upcoming planetary probes - missions and schedules

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59906
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services

Archive-name: space/launchers
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:11 $

ORBITAL AND PLANETARY LAUNCH SERVICES

The following data comes from _International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems_ by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition.

Notes:
    * Unless otherwise specified, LEO and polar paylaods are for a 100 nm
	orbit.
    * Reliablity data includes launches through Dec, 1990. Reliabity for a
	familiy of vehicles includes launches by types no longer built when
	applicable
    * Prices are in millions of 1990 $US and are subject to change.
    * Only operational vehicle families are included. Individual vehicles
	which have not yet flown are marked by an asterisk (*) If a vehicle
	had first launch after publication of my data, it may still be
	marked with an asterisk.


Vehicle        |     Payload  kg  (lbs)   | Reliability | Price | Launch Site
(nation)       |  LEO	   Polar    GTO   |		|	| (Lat. & Long.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ariane					    35/40  87.5%	  Kourou
(ESA)								 (5.2 N, 52.8 W)
  AR40		4,900	  3,900    1,900    1/1		  $65m
	       (10,800)  (8,580)  (4,190)
  AR42P		6,100	  4,800    2,600    1/1		  $67m
	       (13,400)  (10,600) (5,730)
  AR44P		6,900	  5,500    3,000    0/0 ?	  $70m
	       (15,200)  (12,100) (6,610)
  AR42L		7,400	  5,900    3,200    0/0 ?	  $90m
	       (16,300)  (13,000) (7,050)
  AR44LP	8,300	  6,600    3,700    6/6		  $95m
	       (18,300)  (14,500) (8,160)
  AR44L		9,600	  7,700    4,200    3/4		  $115m
	       (21,100)  (16,900) (9,260)

* AR5	       18,000	   ???	   6,800    0/0		  $105m
	      (39,600)		  (15,000)
	       [300nm]


Atlas					   213/245 86.9%	 Cape Canaveral
(USA)								 (28.5 N, 81.0W)
  Atlas E	 --	   820	     --     15/17	  $45m	 Vandeberg AFB
			  (1,800)				(34.7 N, 120.6W)

  Atlas I	5,580	  4,670    2,250    1/1		  $70m
	       (12,300)  (10,300) (4,950)

  Atlas II	6,395	  5,400    2,680    0/0		  $75m
	       (14,100)  (11,900) (5,900)

  Atlas IIA	6,760	  5,715    2,810    0/0		  $85m
	       (14,900)  (12,600) (6,200)

* Atlas IIAS	8,390	  6,805    3,490    0/0		  $115m
	       (18,500)  (15,000) (7,700)


Delta					   189/201 94.0%	 Cape Canaveral
(USA)								 Vandenberg AFB
  Delta 6925	3,900	  2,950    1,450   14/14	  $45m
	       (8,780)	 (6,490)  (3,190)

  Delta 7925	5,045	  3,830    1,820    1/1		  $50m
	       (11,100)  (8,420)  (2,000)


Energia					    2/2  100%		 Baikonur
(Russia)							 (45.6 N 63.4 E)
  Energia      88,000	 80,000     ???     2/2		  $110m
	      (194,000) (176,000)


H series				    22/22 100%		 Tangeshima
(Japan)								(30.2 N 130.6 E)
* H-2	       10,500	 6,600	   4,000    0/0		  $110m
	      (23,000)	(14,500)  (8,800)


Kosmos					   371/377 98.4%	 Plestek
(Russia)							 (62.8 N 40.1 E)
  Kosmos      1100 - 1350  (2300 - 3000)		 $???	 Kapustin Yar
	      [400 km orbit ??? inclination]			 (48.4 N 45.8 E)


Long March				    23/25 92.0%		 Jiquan SLC
(China)								 (41 N	100 E)
* CZ-1D		 720	  ???	    200     0/0		  $10m	 Xichang SLC
		(1,590)		   (440)			 (28 N	102 E)
								 Taiyuan SLC
  CZ-2C		3,200	  1,750    1,000    12/12	  $20m	 (41 N	100 E)
	       (7,040)	 (3,860)  (2,200)

  CZ-2E		9,200	   ???	   3,370    1/1		  $40m
	       (20,300)		  (7,430)

* CZ-2E/HO     13,600	   ???	   4,500    0/0		  $???
	      (29,900)		  (9,900)

  CZ-3		???	   ???	   1,400    6/7		  $33m
				  (3,100)

* CZ-3A		???	   ???	   2,500    0/0		  $???m
				  (5,500)

  CZ-4		4,000	   ???	   1,100    2/2		  $???m
	       (8,800)		  (2,430)


Pegasus/Taurus				    2/2   100%		Peg:  B-52/L1011
(USA)								Taur: Canaveral
  Pegasus	 455	   365	    125     2/2		  $10m	  or Vandenberg
		(1,000)   (800)    (275)

* Taurus	1,450	  1,180     375     0/0		  $15m
	       (3,200)	 (2,600)   (830)


Proton					   164/187 87.7%	 Baikonour
(Russia)
  Proton       20,000	   ???	   5,500   164/187	  $35-70m
	      (44,100)		  (12,200)


SCOUT					    99/113 87.6%	Vandenberg AFB
(USA)								Wallops FF
  SCOUT G-1	 270	   210	    54	    13/13	  $12m	(37.9 N  75.4 W)
		(600)	  (460)    (120)			San Marco
								(2.9 S	40.3 E)
* Enhanced SCOUT 525	   372	   110	    0/0		  $15m
		(1,160)   (820)   (240)


Shavit					    2/2   100%		Palmachim AFB
(Israel)							( ~31 N)
  Shavit	 ???	   160	   ???	    2/2		  $22m
			  (350)

Space Shuttle				    37/38  97.4%	Kennedy Space
(USA)								Center
  Shuttle/SRB  23,500	   ???	   5,900    37/38	  $248m (28.5 N 81.0 W)
	      (51,800)		  (13,000)		  [FY88]

* Shuttle/ASRM 27,100	   ???	   ???	    0/0
	      (59,800)


SLV					    2/6    33.3%	SHAR Center
(India)       (400km)  (900km polar)				(13.9 N 80.4 E)
  ASLV		150	   ???	    ???     0/2		  $???m
	       (330)

* PSLV		3,000	  1,000     450     0/0		  $???m
	       (6,600)	 (2,200)   (990)

* GSLV		8,000	   ???	   2,500    0/0		  $???m
	       (17,600)		  (5,500)


Titan					    160/172 93.0%	Cape Canaveral
(USA)								Vandenberg
  Titan II	 ???	  1,905     ???     2/2		   $43m
			 (4,200)

  Titan III    14,515	  ???	   5,000    2/3		   $140m
	      (32,000)		  (11,000)

  Titan IV/SRM 17,700	 14,100    6,350    3/3		   $154m-$227m
	      (39,000)	(31,100)  (14,000)

 Titan IV/SRMU 21,640	 18,600    8,620    0/0		   $???m
	      (47,700)	(41,000)  (19,000)


Vostok					    1358/1401 96.9%	Baikonur
(Russia)		 [650km]				Plesetsk
  Vostok	4,730	  1,840     ???     ?/149	   $14m
	      (10,400)	(4,060)

  Soyuz		7,000	   ???	    ???     ?/944	   $15m
	      (15,400)

  Molniya	1500kg (3300 lbs) in	    ?/258	   $???M
		Highly eliptical orbit


Zenit					    12/13  92.3%	Baikonur
(Russia)
  Zenit        13,740	 11,380    4,300    12/13	   $65m
	      (30,300)	(25,090)  (9,480)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59907
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 07/15 - Astronomical Mnemonics

Archive-name: space/mnemonics
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:14 $

ASTRONOMICAL MNEMONICS (This is the last FAQ section posted to sci.astro)

    Gathered from various flurries of mnemonic postings on sci.astro.

    Spectral classification sequence: O B A F G K M R N S

	Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now, Sweetheart. (a classic)

	O'Dell's Big Astronomical Fiasco Gonna Kill Me Right Now Surely
	Obese Balding Astronomy Found Guilty; Killed Many Reluctant
	    Nonscience Students.
	Octopus Brains, A Favorite Gastronomical Kitchen Menu,
	    Requires No Sauce
	Odd Ball Astronomers Find Generally Kooky Mnemonics
	    Really Nifty Stuff
	Oh Big And Ferocious Gorilla, Kill My Roomate Next Saturday
	Oh Boy, A Flash! Godzilla Kills Mothra! Really Not Surprising!
	Oh Boy, An F Grade Kills Me
	On Bad Afternoons Fermented Grapes Keep Mrs. Richard Nixon Smiling
	On, Backward Astronomer, Forget Geocentricity; Kepler's Motions
	    Reveal Nature's Simplicity
	Our Bad Astronomy Faculty Gets Killed Monday
	Oven Baked Ants, Fried Gently, Kept Moist, Retain Natural Succulence
	Overseas Broadcast: A Flash!  Godzilla kills Mothra!
	    (Rodan Named Successor)
	Overweight Boys and Fat Girls Keep Munching
	Only Bored Astronomers Find Gratification Knowing Mnemonics
	Oh Bloody Astronomy!  F Grades Kill Me

    Order of the planets:

	Sun
	Mercury
	Venus
	Earth (Terra)
	Mars
	(Asteroids)
	Jupiter
	Saturn
	Uranus
	Neptune
	Pluto

	My Very Earnest Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas
	Mother Very Thoughtfully Made A Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest
	My Very Erotic Mate Joyfully Satisfies Unusual Needs Passionately
	Men Very Easily Make Jugs Serve Useful Nocturnal Purposes
	Man Very Early Made A Jug Serve Useful Noble Purposes
	My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets
	My Very Eager Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets
	My Very Exhausted Mother hAs Just Swept Up a Planetary Nebula
	Most Voters Earn Money Just Showing Up Near Polls
	My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizza-pies
	Many Viscious Elephants Made John, Suzy and Uncle Need Protection
	Solar Mass Very Easily Makes All Jupiter's Satellites Undergo
	    Numerous Perturbations.

	Mein Vater erklaert mir jeden Sonntag unsere niedlichen Planeten
	    (My Father explains to me every Sunday our nine planets)
	Man verachte einen Menschen in seinem Unglueck nie -- Punkt
	    (Never scorn/despise a person in his misfortune/bad luck/misery
		-- period!)

    Colors of the spectrum: Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet
	ROY G. BIV  (pronounce as a man's name)
	Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain
	Read Out Your Good Book In Verse

    Galilean Satellite of Jupiter: Io Europa Ganymede Callisto
	I Expect God Cries
	I Eat Green Cheese
	I Embarrass Good Christians

	Ich erschrecke all guten Christen
	    (I scare all good Christians)

    Saturnian Satellites
	MET DR THIP
	Miriam's Enchiladas Taste Divine Recently. Tell Her I'm Proud.
	(Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Hyperion,
	    Iapetus, Phoebe)

    Uranian Satellites:
	MAUTO
	Mispronunciations Afflict Uranus Too Often
	My Angel Uriel Takes Opium
	(Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon)

NOTE: the remaining FAQ sections do not appear in sci.astro, as they cover
    material of relevance only to sci.space.

NEXT: FAQ #8/15 - Contacting NASA, ESA, and other space agencies/companies

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59908
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 08/15 - Addresses

Archive-name: space/addresses
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:38:55 $

CONTACTING NASA, ESA, AND OTHER SPACE AGENCIES/COMPANIES

Many space activities center around large Government or International
Bureaucracies.	In the US that means NASA.  If you have basic information
requests: (e.g., general PR info, research grants, data, limited tours, and
ESPECIALLY SUMMER EMPLOYMENT (typically resumes should be ready by Jan.  1),
etc.), consider contacting the nearest NASA Center to answer your questions.

EMail typically will not get you any where, computers are used by
investigators, not PR people. The typical volume of mail per Center is a
multiple of 10,000 letters a day. Seek the Public Information Office at one
of the below, this is their job:

NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is the
civilian space agency of of the United States Federal Government.
It reports directly to the White House and is not a Cabinet
post such as the military Department of Defense.  Its 20K+ employees
are civil servants and hence US citizens.  Another 100K+ contractors
also work for NASA.

NASA CENTERS

    NASA Headquarters (NASA HQ)
    Washington DC 20546
    (202)-358-1600

	Ask them questions about policy, money, and things of political
	nature. Direct specific questions to the appropriate center.

    NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)
    Moffett Field, CA 94035
    (415)-694-5091

	Some aeronautical research, atmosphere reentry, Mars and Venus
	planetary atmospheres. "Lead center" for Helicopter research,
	V/STOL, etc. Runs Pioneer series of space probes.

    NASA Ames Research Center
    Dryden Flight Research Facility [DFRF]
    P. O. Box 273
    Edwards, CA  93523
    (805)-258-8381

	Aircraft, mostly. Tested the shuttle orbiter landing
	characteristics. Developed X-1, D-558, X-3, X-4, X-5, XB-70, and of
	course, the X-15.

    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
    Greenbelt, MD 20771
    [Outside of Washington DC]
    (301)-344-6255

	Earth orbiting unmanned satellites and sounding rockets. Developed
	LANDSAT.

    Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
    California Institute of Technology
    4800 Oak Grove Dr.
    Pasadena, CA 91109
    (818)-354-5011

	The "heavies" in planetary research probes and other unmanned
	projects (they also had a lot to do with IRAS). They run Voyager,
	Magellan, Galileo, and will run Cassini, CRAF, etc. etc.. For
	images, probe navigation, and other info about unmanned exploration,
	this is the place to go.

	JPL is run under contract for NASA by the nearby California
	Institute of Technology, unlike the NASA centers above. This
	distinction is subtle but critical. JPL has different requirements
	for unsolicited research proposals and summer hires. For instance in
	the latter, an SF 171 is useless. Employees are Caltech employees,
	contractors, and for the most part have similar responsibilities.
	They offer an alternative to funding after other NASA Centers.

	A fact sheet and description of JPL is available by anonymous
	FTP in

	    ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/JPLDescription

    NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
    Houston, TX 77058
    (713)-483-5111

	JSC manages Space Shuttle, ground control of manned missions.
	Astronaut training. Manned mission simulators.

    NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center (KSC)
    Titusville, FL 32899
    (407)-867-2468

	Space launch center. You know this one.

    NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
    Hampton, VA 23665
    [Near Newport News, VA]
    (804)-865-2935

	Original NASA site. Specializes in theoretical and experimental
	flight dynamics. Viking. Long Duration Exposure Facility.

    NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC)
    21000 Brookpark Rd.
    Cleveland, OH 44135
    (216)-433-4000

	Aircraft/Rocket propulsion. Space power generation. Materials
	research.

    NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
    Huntsville, AL 35812
    (205)-453-0034

	Development, production, delivery of Solid Rocket Boosters, External
	Tank, Orbiter main engines. Propulsion and launchers.

    Michoud Assembly Facility
    Orleans Parish
    New Orleans, LA 70129
    (504)-255-2601

	Shuttle external tanks are produced here; formerly Michoud produced
	first stages for the Saturn V.

    Stennis Space Center
    Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529
    (601)-688-3341

	Space Shuttle main engines are tested here, as were Saturn V first
	and second stages. The center also does remote-sensing and
	technology-transfer research.

    Wallops Flight Center
    Wallops Island, VA 23337
    (804)824-3411
	    Aeronautical research, sounding rockets, Scout launcher.

    Manager, Technology Utilization Office
    NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility
    Post Office Box 8757
    Baltimore, Maryland 21240

    Specific requests for software must go thru COSMIC at the Univ. of
    Georgia, NASA's contracted software redistribution service. You can
    reach them at cosmic@uga.bitnet.

    NOTE: Foreign nationals requesting information must go through their
    Embassies in Washington DC. These are facilities of the US Government
    and are regarded with some degree of economic sensitivity. Centers
    cannot directly return information without high Center approval. Allow
    at least 1 month for clearance. This includes COSMIC.

The US Air Force Space Command can be contacted thru the Pentagon along with
    other Department of Defense offices. They have unacknowledged offices in
    Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Colorado Springs, and other locations. They have
    a budget which rivals NASA in size.

ARIANESPACE HEADQUARTERS
    Boulevard de l'Europe
    B.P. 177
    91006 Evry Cedex
    France

ARIANESPACE, INC.
    1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 875
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202)-728-9075

EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA)
    955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20024
    (202)-488-4158

NATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NASDA)
    4-1 Hamamatsu-Cho, 2 Chome
    Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105, JAPAN

SOYUZKARTA
    45 Vologradsij Pr.
    Moscow 109125
    USSR

SPACE CAMP
    Alabama Space and Rocket Center	U.S. SPACE CAMP
    1 Tranquility Base			6225 Vectorspace Blvd
    Huntsville, AL 35805		Titusville FL  32780
    (205)-837-3400			(407)267-3184

    Registration and mailing list are handled through Huntsville -- both
    camps are described in the same brochure.

    Programs offered at Space Camp are:

	Space Camp - one week, youngsters completing grades 4-6
	Space Academy I - one week, grades 7-9
	Aviation Challenge - one week high school program, grades 9-11
	Space Academy II - 8 days, college accredited, grades 10-12
	Adult Program - 3 days (editorial comment: it's great!)
	Teachers Program - 5 days

SPACE COMMERCE CORPORATION (U.S. agent for Soviet launch services)
    504 Pluto Drive		    69th flr, Texas Commerce Tower
    Colorado Springs, CO 80906	    Houston, TX 77002
    (719)-578-5490		    (713)-227-9000

SPACEHAB
    600 Maryland Avenue, SW
    Suite 201 West
    Washington, DC 20004
    (202)-488-3483

SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION
    1857 Preston White Drive,
    Reston, VA 22091
    (FAX) (703)-648-1813    (703)-620-2200


OTHER COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESSES

    Vincent Cate maintains a list with addresses and some info for a variety
of companies in space-related businesses. This is mailed out on the
space-investors list he runs (see the "Network Resources" FAQ) and is also
available by anonymous ftp from furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu (128.2.209.111) in
/usr/vac/ftp/space-companies.


NEXT: FAQ #9/15 - Schedules for space missions, and how to see them

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59909
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 11/15 - Upcoming Planetary Probes

Archive-name: space/new_probes
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:17 $

UPCOMING PLANETARY PROBES - MISSIONS AND SCHEDULES

    Information on upcoming or currently active missions not mentioned below
    would be welcome. Sources: NASA fact sheets, Cassini Mission Design
    team, ISAS/NASDA launch schedules, press kits.


    ASUKA (ASTRO-D) - ISAS (Japan) X-ray astronomy satellite, launched into
    Earth orbit on 2/20/93. Equipped with large-area wide-wavelength (1-20
    Angstrom) X-ray telescope, X-ray CCD cameras, and imaging gas
    scintillation proportional counters.


    CASSINI - Saturn orbiter and Titan atmosphere probe. Cassini is a joint
    NASA/ESA project designed to accomplish an exploration of the Saturnian
    system with its Cassini Saturn Orbiter and Huygens Titan Probe. Cassini
    is scheduled for launch aboard a Titan IV/Centaur in October of 1997.
    After gravity assists of Venus, Earth and Jupiter in a VVEJGA
    trajectory, the spacecraft will arrive at Saturn in June of 2004. Upon
    arrival, the Cassini spacecraft performs several maneuvers to achieve an
    orbit around Saturn. Near the end of this initial orbit, the Huygens
    Probe separates from the Orbiter and descends through the atmosphere of
    Titan. The Orbiter relays the Probe data to Earth for about 3 hours
    while the Probe enters and traverses the cloudy atmosphere to the
    surface. After the completion of the Probe mission, the Orbiter
    continues touring the Saturnian system for three and a half years. Titan
    synchronous orbit trajectories will allow about 35 flybys of Titan and
    targeted flybys of Iapetus, Dione and Enceladus. The objectives of the
    mission are threefold: conduct detailed studies of Saturn's atmosphere,
    rings and magnetosphere; conduct close-up studies of Saturn's
    satellites, and characterize Titan's atmosphere and surface.

    One of the most intriguing aspects of Titan is the possibility that its
    surface may be covered in part with lakes of liquid hydrocarbons that
    result from photochemical processes in its upper atmosphere. These
    hydrocarbons condense to form a global smog layer and eventually rain
    down onto the surface. The Cassini orbiter will use onboard radar to
    peer through Titan's clouds and determine if there is liquid on the
    surface. Experiments aboard both the orbiter and the entry probe will
    investigate the chemical processes that produce this unique atmosphere.

    The Cassini mission is named for Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712), the
    first director of the Paris Observatory, who discovered several of
    Saturn's satellites and the major division in its rings. The Titan
    atmospheric entry probe is named for the Dutch physicist Christiaan
    Huygens (1629-1695), who discovered Titan and first described the true
    nature of Saturn's rings.

	 Key Scheduled Dates for the Cassini Mission (VVEJGA Trajectory)
	 -------------------------------------------------------------
	   10/06/97 - Titan IV/Centaur Launch
	   04/21/98 - Venus 1 Gravity Assist
	   06/20/99 - Venus 2 Gravity Assist
	   08/16/99 - Earth Gravity Assist
	   12/30/00 - Jupiter Gravity Assist
	   06/25/04 - Saturn Arrival
	   01/09/05 - Titan Probe Release
	   01/30/05 - Titan Probe Entry
	   06/25/08 - End of Primary Mission
	    (Schedule last updated 7/22/92)


    GALILEO - Jupiter orbiter and atmosphere probe, in transit. Has returned
    the first resolved images of an asteroid, Gaspra, while in transit to
    Jupiter. Efforts to unfurl the stuck High-Gain Antenna (HGA) have
    essentially been abandoned. JPL has developed a backup plan using data
    compression (JPEG-like for images, lossless compression for data from
    the other instruments) which should allow the mission to achieve
    approximately 70% of its original objectives.

	   Galileo Schedule
	   ----------------
	   10/18/89 - Launch from Space Shuttle
	   02/09/90 - Venus Flyby
	   10/**/90 - Venus Data Playback
	   12/08/90 - 1st Earth Flyby
	   05/01/91 - High Gain Antenna Unfurled
	   07/91 - 06/92 - 1st Asteroid Belt Passage
	   10/29/91 - Asteroid Gaspra Flyby
	   12/08/92 - 2nd Earth Flyby
	   05/93 - 11/93 - 2nd Asteroid Belt Passage
	   08/28/93 - Asteroid Ida Flyby
	   07/02/95 - Probe Separation
	   07/09/95 - Orbiter Deflection Maneuver
	   12/95 - 10/97 - Orbital Tour of Jovian Moons
	   12/07/95 - Jupiter/Io Encounter
	   07/18/96 - Ganymede
	   09/28/96 - Ganymede
	   12/12/96 - Callisto
	   01/23/97 - Europa
	   02/28/97 - Ganymede
	   04/22/97 - Europa
	   05/31/97 - Europa
	   10/05/97 - Jupiter Magnetotail Exploration


    HITEN - Japanese (ISAS) lunar probe launched 1/24/90. Has made
    multiple lunar flybys. Released Hagoromo, a smaller satellite,
    into lunar orbit. This mission made Japan the third nation to
    orbit a satellite around the Moon.


    MAGELLAN - Venus radar mapping mission. Has mapped almost the entire
    surface at high resolution. Currently (4/93) collecting a global gravity
    map.


    MARS OBSERVER - Mars orbiter including 1.5 m/pixel resolution camera.
    Launched 9/25/92 on a Titan III/TOS booster. MO is currently (4/93) in
    transit to Mars, arriving on 8/24/93. Operations will start 11/93 for
    one martian year (687 days).


    TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched
    8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
    TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
    observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
    increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
    will increase understanding of how heat is transported in the ocean.


    ULYSSES- European Space Agency probe to study the Sun from an orbit over
    its poles. Launched in late 1990, it carries particles-and-fields
    experiments (such as magnetometer, ion and electron collectors for
    various energy ranges, plasma wave radio receivers, etc.) but no camera.

    Since no human-built rocket is hefty enough to send Ulysses far out of
    the ecliptic plane, it went to Jupiter instead, and stole energy from
    that planet by sliding over Jupiter's north pole in a gravity-assist
    manuver in February 1992. This bent its path into a solar orbit tilted
    about 85 degrees to the ecliptic. It will pass over the Sun's south pole
    in the summer of 1993. Its aphelion is 5.2 AU, and, surprisingly, its
    perihelion is about 1.5 AU-- that's right, a solar-studies spacecraft
    that's always further from the Sun than the Earth is!

    While in Jupiter's neigborhood, Ulysses studied the magnetic and
    radiation environment. For a short summary of these results, see
    *Science*, V. 257, p. 1487-1489 (11 September 1992). For gory technical
    detail, see the many articles in the same issue.


    OTHER SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS (note: this is based on a posting by Ron
    Baalke in 11/89, with ISAS/NASDA information contributed by Yoshiro
    Yamada (yamada@yscvax.ysc.go.jp). I'm attempting to track changes based
    on updated shuttle manifests; corrections and updates are welcome.

    1993 Missions
	o ALEXIS [spring, Pegasus]
	    ALEXIS (Array of Low-Energy X-ray Imaging Sensors) is to perform
	    a wide-field sky survey in the "soft" (low-energy) X-ray
	    spectrum. It will scan the entire sky every six months to search
	    for variations in soft-X-ray emission from sources such as white
	    dwarfs, cataclysmic variable stars and flare stars. It will also
	    search nearby space for such exotic objects as isolated neutron
	    stars and gamma-ray bursters. ALEXIS is a project of Los Alamos
	    National Laboratory and is primarily a technology development
	    mission that uses astrophysical sources to demonstrate the
	    technology. Contact project investigator Jeffrey J Bloch
	    (jjb@beta.lanl.gov) for more information.

	o Wind [Aug, Delta II rocket]
	    Satellite to measure solar wind input to magnetosphere.

	o Space Radar Lab [Sep, STS-60 SRL-01]
	    Gather radar images of Earth's surface.

	o Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer [Dec, Pegasus rocket]
	    Study of Stratospheric ozone.

	o SFU (Space Flyer Unit) [ISAS]
	    Conducting space experiments and observations and this can be
	    recovered after it conducts the various scientific and
	    engineering experiments. SFU is to be launched by ISAS and
	    retrieved by the U.S. Space Shuttle on STS-68 in 1994.

    1994
	o Polar Auroral Plasma Physics [May, Delta II rocket]
	    June, measure solar wind and ions and gases surrounding the
	    Earth.

	o IML-2 (STS) [NASDA, Jul 1994 IML-02]
	    International Microgravity Laboratory.

	o ADEOS [NASDA]
	    Advanced Earth Observing Satellite.

	o MUSES-B (Mu Space Engineering Satellite-B) [ISAS]
	    Conducting research on the precise mechanism of space structure
	    and in-space astronomical observations of electromagnetic waves.

    1995
	LUNAR-A [ISAS]
	    Elucidating the crust structure and thermal construction of the
	    moon's interior.


    Proposed Missions:
	o Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility (AXAF)
	    Possible launch from shuttle in 1995, AXAF is a space
	    observatory with a high resolution telescope. It would orbit for
	    15 years and study the mysteries and fate of the universe.

	o Earth Observing System (EOS)
	    Possible launch in 1997, 1 of 6 US orbiting space platforms to
	    provide long-term data (15 years) of Earth systems science
	    including planetary evolution.

	o Mercury Observer
	    Possible 1997 launch.

	o Lunar Observer
	    Possible 1997 launch, would be sent into a long-term lunar
	    orbit. The Observer, from 60 miles above the moon's poles, would
	    survey characteristics to provide a global context for the
	    results from the Apollo program.

	o Space Infrared Telescope Facility
	    Possible launch by shuttle in 1999, this is the 4th element of
	    the Great Observatories program. A free-flying observatory with
	    a lifetime of 5 to 10 years, it would observe new comets and
	    other primitive bodies in the outer solar system, study cosmic
	    birth formation of galaxies, stars and planets and distant
	    infrared-emitting galaxies

	o Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR)
	    Robotics rover would return samples of Mars' atmosphere and
	    surface to Earch for analysis. Possible launch dates: 1996 for
	    imaging orbiter, 2001 for rover.

	o Fire and Ice
	    Possible launch in 2001, will use a gravity assist flyby of
	    Earth in 2003, and use a final gravity assist from Jupiter in
	    2005, where the probe will split into its Fire and Ice
	    components: The Fire probe will journey into the Sun, taking
	    measurements of our star's upper atmosphere until it is
	    vaporized by the intense heat. The Ice probe will head out
	    towards Pluto, reaching the tiny world for study by 2016.


NEXT: FAQ #12/15 - Controversial questions

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 59913
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space FAQ 04/15 - Calculations

Archive-name: space/math
Last-modified: $Date: 93/04/01 14:39:12 $

PERFORMING CALCULATIONS AND INTERPRETING DATA FORMATS

    COMPUTING SPACECRAFT ORBITS AND TRAJECTORIES

    References that have been frequently recommended on the net are:

    "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" Roger Bate, Donald Mueller, Jerry White
    1971, Dover Press, 455pp $8.95 (US) (paperback). ISBN 0-486-60061-0

    NASA Spaceflight handbooks (dating from the 1960s)
	SP-33 Orbital Flight Handbook (3 parts)
	SP-34 Lunar Flight Handbook   (3 parts)
	SP-35 Planetary Flight Handbook (9 parts)

	These might be found in university aeronautics libraries or ordered
	through the US Govt. Printing Office (GPO), although more
	information would probably be needed to order them.

    M. A. Minovitch, _The Determination and Characteristics of Ballistic
    Interplanetary Trajectories Under the Influence of Multiple Planetary
    Attractions_, Technical Report 32-464, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
    Pasadena, Calif., Oct, 1963.

	The title says all. Starts of with the basics and works its way up.
	Very good. It has a companion article:

    M. Minovitch, _Utilizing Large Planetary Perubations for the Design of
    Deep-Space Solar-Probe and Out of Ecliptic Trajectories_, Technical
    Report 32-849, JPL, Pasadena, Calif., 1965.

	You need to read the first one first to realy understand this one.
	It does include a _short_ summary if you can only find the second.

	Contact JPL for availability of these reports.

    "Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics", Peter C. Hughes 1986, John Wiley and
	Sons.

    "Celestial Mechanics: a computational guide for the practitioner",
    Lawrence G. Taff, (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1985).

	Starts with the basics (2-body problem, coordinates) and works up to
	orbit determinations, perturbations, and differential corrections.
	Taff also briefly discusses stellar dynamics including a short
	discussion of n-body problems.


    COMPUTING PLANETARY POSITIONS

    More net references:

    Van Flandern & Pullinen, _Low-Precision Formulae for Planetary
    Positions_, Astrophysical J. Supp Series, 41:391-411, 1979. Look in an
    astronomy or physics library for this; also said to be available from
    Willmann-Bell.

	Gives series to compute positions accurate to 1 arc minute for a
	period + or - 300 years from now. Pluto is included but stated to
	have an accuracy of only about 15 arc minutes.

    _Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac_ (MICA), produced by the US
    Naval Observatory. Valid for years 1990-1999. $55 ($80 outside US).
    Available for IBM (order #PB93-500163HDV) or Macintosh (order
    #PB93-500155HDV). From the NTIS sales desk, (703)-487-4650. I believe
    this is intended to replace the USNO's Interactive Computer Ephemeris.

    _Interactive Computer Ephemeris_ (from the US Naval Observatory)
    distributed on IBM-PC floppy disks, $35 (Willmann-Bell). Covers dates
    1800-2049.

    "Planetary Programs and Tables from -4000 to +2800", Bretagnon & Simon
    1986, Willmann-Bell.

	Floppy disks available separately.

    "Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics" (2nd ed), J.M.A. Danby 1988,
    Willmann-Bell.

	A good fundamental text. Includes BASIC programs; a companion set of
	floppy disks is available separately.

    "Astronomical Formulae for Calculators" (4th ed.), J. Meeus 1988,
    Willmann-Bell.

    "Astronomical Algorithms", J. Meeus 1991, Willmann-Bell.

	If you actively use one of the editions of "Astronomical Formulae
	for Calculators", you will want to replace it with "Astronomical
	Algorithms". This new book is more oriented towards computers than
	calculators and contains formulae for planetary motion based on
	modern work by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the U.S. Naval
	Observatory, and the Bureau des Longitudes. The previous books were
	all based on formulae mostly developed in the last century.

	Algorithms available separately on diskette.

    "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator" (3rd ed.), P. Duffett-Smith
    1988, Cambridge University Press.

    "Orbits for Amateurs with a Microcomputer", D. Tattersfield 1984,
    Stanley Thornes, Ltd.

	Includes example programs in BASIC.

    "Orbits for Amateurs II", D. Tattersfield 1987, John Wiley & Sons.

    "Astronomy / Scientific Software" - catalog of shareware, public domain,
    and commercial software for IBM and other PCs. Astronomy software
    includes planetarium simulations, ephemeris generators, astronomical
    databases, solar system simulations, satellite tracking programs,
    celestial mechanics simulators, and more.

	Andromeda Software, Inc.
	P.O. Box 605
	Amherst, NY 14226-0605


    COMPUTING CRATER DIAMETERS FROM EARTH-IMPACTING ASTEROIDS

    Astrogeologist Gene Shoemaker proposes the following formula, based on
    studies of cratering caused by nuclear tests.

		     (1/3.4)
    D = S  S  c  K  W	    : crater diameter in km
	 g  p  f  n

	       (1/6)
    S = (g /g )		    : gravity correction factor for bodies other than
     g	  e  t		      Earth, where g = 9.8 m/s^2 and g	is the surface
					    e		      t
			      gravity of the target body. This scaling is
			      cited for lunar craters and may hold true for
			      other bodies.

		(1/3.4)
    S = (p / p )	    : correction factor for target density p  ,
     p	  a   t							    t
			      p  = 1.8 g/cm^3 for alluvium at the Jangle U
			       a
			      crater site, p = 2.6 g/cm^3 for average
			      rock on the continental shields.

    C			    : crater collapse factor, 1 for craters <= 3 km
			      in diameter, 1.3 for larger craters (on Earth).

							    (1/3.4)
    K			    : .074 km / (kT TNT equivalent)
     n			      empirically determined from the Jangle U
			      nuclear test crater.

	      3		   2		       19
    W = pi * d	* delta * V  / (12 * 4.185 * 10  )
			    : projectile kinetic energy in kT TNT equivalent
			      given diameter d, velocity v, and projectile
			      density delta in CGS units. delta of around 3
			      g/cm^3 is fairly good for an asteroid.

    An RMS velocity of V = 20 km/sec may be used for Earth-crossing
    asteroids.

    Under these assumptions, the body which created the Barringer Meteor
    Crater in Arizona (1.13 km diameter) would have been about 40 meters in
    diameter.

    More generally, one can use (after Gehrels, 1985):

    Asteroid	    Number of objects  Impact probability  Impact energy
    diameter (km)		       (impacts/year)	   (* 5*10^20 ergs)

     10			    10		     10^-8		10^9
      1			 1 000		     10^-6		10^6
      0.1	       100 000		     10^-4		10^3

    assuming simple scaling laws. Note that 5*10^20 ergs = 13 000 tons TNT
    equivalent, or the energy released by the Hiroshima A-bomb.

    References:

    Gehrels, T. 1985 Asteroids and comets. _Physics Today_ 38, 32-41. [an
	excellent general overview of the subject for the layman]

    Shoemaker, E.M. 1983 Asteroid and comet bombardment of the earth. _Ann.
	Rev. Earth Planet. Sci._ 11, 461-494. [very long and fairly
	technical but a comprehensive examination of the
	 subject]

    Shoemaker, E.M., J.G. Williams, E.F. Helin & R.F. Wolfe 1979
	Earth-crossing asteroids: Orbital classes, collision rates with
	Earth, and origin. In _Asteroids_, T. Gehrels, ed., pp. 253-282,
	University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Cunningham, C.J. 1988 _Introduction to Asteroids: The Next Frontier_
	(Richmond: Willman-Bell, Inc.) [covers all aspects of asteroid
	studies and is an excellent introduction to the subject for people
	of all experience levels. It also has a very extensive reference
	list covering essentially all of the reference material in the
	field.]


    MAP PROJECTIONS AND SPHERICAL TRIGNOMETRY

    Two easy-to-find sources of map projections are the "Encyclopaedia
    Brittanica", (particularly the older volumes) and a tutorial appearing
    in _Graphics Gems_ (Academic Press, 1990). The latter was written with
    simplicity of exposition and suitability of digital computation in mind
    (spherical trig formulae also appear, as do digitally-plotted examples).

    More than you ever cared to know about map projections is in John
    Snyder's USGS publication "Map Projections--A Working Manual", USGS
    Professional Paper 1395. This contains detailed descriptions of 32
    projections, with history, features, projection formulas (for both
    spherical earth and ellipsoidal earth), and numerical test cases. It's a
    neat book, all 382 pages worth. This one's $20.

    You might also want the companion volume, by Snyder and Philip Voxland,
    "An Album of Map Projections", USGS Professional Paper 1453. This
    contains less detail on about 130 projections and variants. Formulas are
    in the back, example plots in the front. $14, 250 pages.

    You can order these 2 ways. The cheap, slow way is direct from USGS:
    Earth Science Information Center, US Geological Survey, 507 National
    Center, Reston, VA 22092. (800)-USA-MAPS. They can quote you a price and
    tell you where to send your money. Expect a 6-8 week turnaround time.

    A much faster way (about 1 week) is through Timely Discount Topos,
    (303)-469-5022, 9769 W. 119th Drive, Suite 9, Broomfield, CO 80021. Call
    them and tell them what you want. They'll quote a price, you send a
    check, and then they go to USGS Customer Service Counter and pick it up
    for you. Add about a $3-4 service charge, plus shipping.

    A (perhaps more accessible) mapping article is:

	R. Miller and F. Reddy, "Mapping the World in Pascal",
	Byte V12 #14, December 1987

	Contains Turbo Pascal procedures for five common map projections. A
	demo program, CARTOG.PAS, and a small (6,000 point) coastline data
	is available on CompuServe, GEnie, and many BBSs.

    Some references for spherical trignometry are:

	_Spherical Astronomy_, W.M. Smart, Cambridge U. Press, 1931.

	_A Compendium of Spherical Astronomy_, S. Newcomb, Dover, 1960.

	_Spherical Astronomy_, R.M. Green, Cambridge U. Press., 1985 (update
	of Smart).

	_Spherical Astronomy_, E Woolard and G.Clemence, Academic
	Press, 1966.


    PERFORMING N-BODY SIMULATIONS EFFICIENTLY

	"Computer Simulation Using Particles"
	R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood
	(Adam Hilger; Bristol and Philadelphia; 1988)

	"The rapid evaluation of potential fields in particle systems",
	L. Greengard
	MIT Press, 1988.

	    A breakthrough O(N) simulation method. Has been parallelized.

	L. Greengard and V. Rokhlin, "A fast algorithm for particle
	simulations," Journal of Computational Physics, 73:325-348, 1987.

	"An O(N) Algorithm for Three-dimensional N-body Simulations", MSEE
	thesis, Feng Zhao, MIT AILab Technical Report 995, 1987

	"Galactic Dynamics"
	J. Binney & S. Tremaine
	(Princeton U. Press; Princeton; 1987)

	    Includes an O(N^2) FORTRAN code written by Aarseth, a pioneer in
	    the field.

	Hierarchical (N log N) tree methods are described in these papers:

	A. W. Appel, "An Efficient Program for Many-body Simulation", SIAM
	Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, Vol. 6, p. 85,
	1985.

	Barnes & Hut, "A Hierarchical O(N log N) Force-Calculation
	Algorithm", Nature, V324 # 6096, 4-10 Dec 1986.

	L. Hernquist, "Hierarchical N-body Methods", Computer Physics
	Communications, Vol. 48, p. 107, 1988.


    INTERPRETING THE FITS IMAGE FORMAT

    If you just need to examine FITS images, use the ppm package (see the
    comp.graphics FAQ) to convert them to your preferred format. For more
    information on the format and other software to read and write it, see
    the sci.astro.fits FAQ.


    SKY (UNIX EPHEMERIS PROGRAM)

    The 6th Edition of the Unix operating system came with several software
    systems not distributed because of older media capacity limitations.
    Included were an ephmeris, a satellite track, and speech synthesis
    software. The ephmeris, sky(6), is available within AT&T and to sites
    possessing a Unix source code license. The program is regarded as Unix
    source code. Sky is <0.5MB. Send proof of source code license to

	E. Miya
	MS 258-5
	NASA Ames Research Center
	Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
	eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov


    THREE-DIMENSIONAL STAR/GALAXY COORDINATES

    To generate 3D coordinates of astronomical objects, first obtain an
    astronomical database which specifies right ascension, declination, and
    parallax for the objects. Convert parallax into distance using the
    formula in part 6 of the FAQ, convert RA and declination to coordinates
    on a unit sphere (see some of the references on planetary positions and
    spherical trignometry earlier in this section for details on this), and
    scale this by the distance.

    Two databases useful for this purpose are the Yale Bright Star catalog
    (sources listed in FAQ section 3) or "The Catalogue of Stars within 25
    parsecs of the Sun" (in pub/SPACE/FAQ/stars.data and stars.doc on
    ames.arc.nasa.gov).


NEXT: FAQ #5/15 - References on specific areas

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60103
From: bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu (Mark Bradford)
Subject: Astro/Space Frequently Seen Acronyms

Archive-name: space/acronyms
Edition: 8

Acronym List for sci.astro, sci.space, and sci.space.shuttle:
Edition 8, 1992 Dec 7
Last posted: 1992 Aug 27

This list is offered as a reference for translating commonly appearing
acronyms in the space-related newsgroups.  If I forgot or botched your
favorite acronym, please let me know!  Also, if there's an acronym *not*
on this list that confuses you, drop me a line, and if I can figure
it out, I'll add it to the list.

Note that this is intended to be a reference for *frequently seen*
acronyms, and is most emphatically *not* encyclopedic.  If I incorporated
every acronym I ever saw, I'd soon run out of disk space!  :-)

The list will be posted at regular intervals, every 30 days.  All
comments regarding it are welcome; I'm reachable as bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu.

Note that this just tells what the acronyms stand for -- you're on your
own for figuring out what they *mean*!  Note also that the total number of
acronyms in use far exceeds what I can list; special-purpose acronyms that
are essentially always explained as they're introduced are omitted.
Further, some acronyms stand for more than one thing; as of Edition 3 of
the list, these acronyms appear on multiple lines, unless they're simply
different ways of referring to the same thing.

Thanks to everybody who's sent suggestions since the first version of
the list, and especially to Garrett A. Wollman (wollman@griffin.uvm.edu),
who is maintaining an independent list, somewhat more verbose in
character than mine, and to Daniel Fischer (dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de),
who is maintaining a truly HUGE list (535 at last count) of acronyms and
terms, mostly in German (which I read, fortunately).

Special thanks this time to Ken Hollis at NASA, who sent me a copy of NASA
Reference Publication 1059 Revised: _Space Transportation System and
Associated Payloads: Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations_, a truly
mammoth tome -- almost 300 pages of TLAs.

Special Bonus!  At the end of this posting, you will find a perl program
written by none other than Larry Wall, whose purpose is to scramble the
acronym list in an entertaining fashion.  Thanks, Larry!

A&A: Astronomy and Astrophysics
AAO: Anglo-Australian Observatory
AAS: American Astronomical Society
AAS: American Astronautical Society
AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers
ACE: Advanced Composition Explorer
ACRV: Assured Crew Return Vehicle (or) Astronaut Crew Rescue Vehicle
ADFRF: Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (was DFRF) (NASA)
AGN: Active Galactic Nucleus
AGU: American Geophysical Union
AIAA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIPS: Astronomical Image Processing System
AJ: Astronomical Journal
ALEXIS: Array of Low Energy X-ray Imaging Sensors
ALPO: Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers
ALS: Advanced Launch System
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
AOA: Abort Once Around (Shuttle abort plan)
AOCS: Attitude and Orbit Control System
Ap.J: Astrophysical Journal
APM: Attached Pressurized Module (a.k.a. Columbus)
APU: Auxiliary Power Unit
ARC: Ames Research Center (NASA)
ARTEMIS: Advanced Relay TEchnology MISsion
ASA: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
ASI: Agenzia Spaziale Italiano
ASRM: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor
ATDRS: Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
ATLAS: Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science
ATM: Amateur Telescope Maker
ATO: Abort To Orbit (Shuttle abort plan)
AU: Astronomical Unit
AURA: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy
AW&ST: Aviation Week and Space Technology (a.k.a. AvLeak)
AXAF: Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility
BATSE: Burst And Transient Source Experiment (on CGRO)
BBXRT: Broad-Band X-Ray Telescope (ASTRO package)
BEM: Bug-Eyed Monster
BH: Black Hole
BIMA: Berkeley Illinois Maryland Array
BNSC: British National Space Centre
BTW: By The Way
C&T: Communications & Tracking
CCAFS: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
CCD: Charge-Coupled Device
CCDS: Centers for the Commercial Development of Space
CD-ROM: Compact Disk Read-Only Memory
CFA: Center For Astrophysics
CFC: ChloroFluoroCarbon
CFF: Columbus Free Flyer
CFHT: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
CGRO: (Arthur Holley) Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (was GRO)
CHARA: Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy
CIRRIS: Cryogenic InfraRed Radiance Instrument for Shuttle
CIT: Circumstellar Imaging Telescope
CM: Command Module (Apollo spacecraft)
CMCC: Central Mission Control Centre (ESA)
CNES: Centre National d'Etude Spatiales
CNO: Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen
CNSR: Comet Nucleus Sample Return
COBE: COsmic Background Explorer
COMPTEL: COMPton TELescope (on CGRO)
COSTAR: Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement
CRAF: Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby
CRRES: Combined Release / Radiation Effects Satellite
CSM: Command and Service Module (Apollo spacecraft)
CSTC: Consolidated Satellite Test Center (USAF)
CTIO: Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory
DCX: Delta Clipper eXperimental
DDCU: DC-to-DC Converter Unit
DFRF: Dryden Flight Research Facility (now ADFRF)
DMSP: Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
DOD: Department Of Defense (sometimes DoD)
DOE: Department Of Energy
DOT: Department Of Transportation
DSCS: Defense Satellite Communications System
DSN: Deep Space Network
DSP: Defense Support Program (USAF/NRO)
EAFB: Edwards Air Force Base
ECS: Environmental Control System
EDO: Extended Duration Orbiter
EGRET: Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (on CGRO)
EJASA: Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
ELV: Expendable Launch Vehicle
EMU: Extravehicular Mobility Unit
EOS: Earth Observing System
ERS: Earth Resources Satellite (as in ERS-1)
ESA: European Space Agency
ESO: European Southern Observatory
ET: (Shuttle) External Tank
ETLA: Extended Three Letter Acronym
ETR: Eastern Test Range
EUV: Extreme UltraViolet
EUVE: Extreme UltraViolet Explorer
EVA: ExtraVehicular Activity
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
FAST: Fast Auroral SnapshoT explorer
FFT: Fast Fourier Transform
FGS: Fine Guidance Sensors (on HST)
FHST: Fixed Head Star Trackers (on HST)
FIR: Far InfraRed
FITS: Flexible Image Transport System
FOC: Faint Object Camera (on HST)
FOS: Faint Object Spectrograph (on HST)
FRR: Flight-Readiness Review
FTP: File Transfer Protocol
FTS: Flight Telerobotic Servicer
FUSE: Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer
FWHM: Full Width at Half Maximum
FYI: For Your Information
GAS: Get-Away Special
GBT: Green Bank Telescope
GCVS: General Catalog of Variable Stars
GEM: Giotto Extended Mission
GEO: Geosynchronous Earth Orbit
GDS: Great Dark Spot
GHRS: Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (on HST)
GIF: Graphics Interchange Format
GLOMR: Global Low-Orbiting Message Relay
GMC: Giant Molecular Cloud
GMRT: Giant Meter-wave Radio Telescope
GMT: Greenwich Mean Time (also called UT)
GOES: Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite
GOX: Gaseous OXygen
GPC: General Purpose Computer
GPS: Global Positioning System
GRO: Gamma Ray Observatory (now CGRO)
GRS: Gamma Ray Spectrometer (on Mars Observer)
GRS: Great Red Spot
GSC: Guide Star Catalog (for HST)
GSFC: Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA)
GTO: Geostationary Transfer Orbit
HAO: High Altitude Observatory
HD: Henry Draper catalog entry
HEAO: High Energy Astronomical Observatory
HeRA: Hermes Robotic Arm
HF: High Frequency
HGA: High Gain Antenna
HLC: Heavy Lift Capability
HLV: Heavy Lift Vehicle
HMC: Halley Multicolor Camera (on Giotto)
HR: Hertzsprung-Russell (diagram)
HRI: High Resolution Imager (on ROSAT)
HSP: High Speed Photometer (on HST)
HST: Hubble Space Telescope
HUT: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (ASTRO package)
HV: High Voltage
IAPPP: International Amateur/Professional Photoelectric Photometry
IAU: International Astronomical Union
IAUC: IAU Circular
ICE: International Cometary Explorer
IDA: International Dark-sky Association
IDL: Interactive Data Language
IGM: InterGalactic Medium
IGY: International Geophysical Year
IMHO: In My Humble Opinion
IOTA: Infrared-Optical Telescope Array
IOTA: International Occultation Timing Association
IPS: Inertial Pointing System
IR: InfraRed
IRAF: Image Reduction and Analysis Facility
IRAS: InfraRed Astronomical Satellite
ISAS: Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (Japan)
ISM: InterStellar Medium
ISO: Infrared Space Observatory
ISO: International Standards Organization
ISPM: International Solar Polar Mission (now Ulysses)
ISY: International Space Year
IUE: International Ultraviolet Explorer
IUS: Inertial Upper Stage
JEM: Japanese Experiment Module (for SSF)
JGR: Journal of Geophysical Research
JILA: Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JSC: Johnson Space Center (NASA)
KAO: Kuiper Airborne Observatory
KPNO: Kitt Peak National Observatory
KSC: Kennedy Space Center (NASA)
KTB: Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary (from German)
LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory
LaRC: Langley Research Center (NASA)
LDEF: Long Duration Exposure Facility
LEM: Lunar Excursion Module (a.k.a. LM) (Apollo spacecraft)
LEO: Low Earth Orbit
LeRC: Lewis Research Center (NASA)
LEST: Large Earth-based Solar Telescope
LFSA: List of Frequently Seen Acronyms (!)
LGA: Low Gain Antenna
LGM: Little Green Men
LH: Liquid Hydrogen (also LH2 or LHX)
LLNL: Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory
LM: Lunar Module (a.k.a. LEM) (Apollo spacecraft)
LMC: Large Magellanic Cloud
LN2: Liquid N2 (Nitrogen)
LOX: Liquid OXygen
LRB: Liquid Rocket Booster
LSR: Local Standard of Rest
LTP: Lunar Transient Phenomenon
MB: Manned Base
MCC: Mission Control Center
MECO: Main Engine CutOff
MMH: MonoMethyl Hydrazine
MMT: Multiple Mirror Telescope
MMU: Manned Maneuvering Unit
MNRAS: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
MOC: Mars Observer Camera (on Mars Observer)
MOL: Manned Orbiting Laboratory
MOLA: Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (on Mars Observer)
MOMV: Manned Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle
MOTV: Manned Orbital Transfer Vehicle
MPC: Minor Planets Circular
MRSR: Mars Rover and Sample Return
MRSRM: Mars Rover and Sample Return Mission
MSFC: (George C.) Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA)
MTC: Man Tended Capability
NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (became NASA)
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASDA: NAtional Space Development Agency (Japan)
NASM: National Air and Space Museum
NASP: National AeroSpace Plane
NBS: National Bureau of Standards (now NIST)
NDV: NASP Derived Vehicle
NERVA: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application
NGC: New General Catalog
NICMOS: Near Infrared Camera / Multi Object Spectrometer (HST upgrade)
NIMS: Near-Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (on Galileo)
NIR: Near InfraRed
NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology (was NBS)
NLDP: National Launch Development Program
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAO: National Optical Astronomy Observatories
NRAO: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
NRO: National Reconnaissance Office
NS: Neutron Star
NSA: National Security Agency
NSF: National Science Foundation
NSO: National Solar Observatory
NSSDC: National Space Science Data Center
NTR: Nuclear Thermal Rocket(ry)
NTT: New Technology Telescope
OAO: Orbiting Astronomical Observatory
OCST: Office of Commercial Space Transportation
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
OMS: Orbital Maneuvering System
OPF: Orbiter Processing Facility
ORFEUS: Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer
OSC: Orbital Sciences Corporation
OSCAR: Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio
OSSA: Office of Space Science and Applications
OSSE: Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (on CGRO)
OTA: Optical Telescope Assembly (on HST)
OTHB: Over The Horizon Backscatter
OTV: Orbital Transfer Vehicle
OV: Orbital Vehicle
PAM: Payload Assist Module
PAM-D: Payload Assist Module, Delta-class
PI: Principal Investigator
PLSS: Portable Life Support System
PM: Pressurized Module
PMC: Permanently Manned Capability
PMIRR: Pressure Modulated InfraRed Radiometer (on Mars Observer)
PMT: PhotoMultiplier Tube
PSF: Point Spread Function
PSR: PulSaR
PV: Photovoltaic
PVO: Pioneer Venus Orbiter
QSO: Quasi-Stellar Object
RCI: Rodent Cage Interface (for SLS mission)
RCS: Reaction Control System
REM: Rat Enclosure Module (for SLS mission)
RF: Radio Frequency
RFI: Radio Frequency Interference
RIACS: Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
RMS: Remote Manipulator System
RNGC: Revised New General Catalog
ROSAT: ROentgen SATellite
ROUS: Rodents Of Unusual Size (I don't believe they exist)
RSN: Real Soon Now
RTG: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
RTLS: Return To Launch Site (Shuttle abort plan)
SAA: South Atlantic Anomaly
SAGA: Solar Array Gain Augmentation (for HST)
SAMPEX: Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle EXplorer
SAO: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
SAR: Search And Rescue
SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar
SARA: Satellite pour Astronomie Radio Amateur
SAREX: Search and Rescue Exercise
SAREX: Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment
SAS: Space Activity Suit
SAS: Space Adaptation Syndrome
SAT: Synthetic Aperture Telescope
S/C: SpaceCraft
SCA: Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
SCT: Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope
SDI: Strategic Defense Initiative
SDIO: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
SEI: Space Exploration Initiative
SEST: Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope
SETI: Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
SID: Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance
SIR: Shuttle Imaging Radar
SIRTF: Space (formerly Shuttle) InfraRed Telescope Facility
SL: SpaceLab
SLAR: Side-Looking Airborne Radar
SLC: Space Launch Complex
SLS: Space(lab) Life Sciences
SMC: Small Magellanic Cloud
SME: Solar Mesosphere Explorer
SMEX: SMall EXplorers
SMM: Solar Maximum Mission
SN: SuperNova (e.g., SN1987A)
SNR: Signal to Noise Ratio
SNR: SuperNova Remnant
SNU: Solar Neutrino Units
SOFIA: Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy
SOHO: SOlar Heliospheric Observatory
SPAN: Space Physics and Analysis Network
SPDM: Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator
SPOT: Systeme Probatoire pour l'Observation de la Terre
SPS: Solar Power Satellite
SRB: Solid Rocket Booster
SRM: Solid Rocket Motor
SSF: Space Station Fred (er, Freedom)
SSI: Solid-State Imager (on Galileo)
SSI: Space Studies Institut
SSME: Space Shuttle Main Engine
SSPF: Space Station Processing Facility
SSRMS: Space Station Remote Manipulator System
SST: Spectroscopic Survey Telescope
SST: SuperSonic Transport
SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit
STIS: Space Telescope Imaging Spectrometer (to replace FOC and GHRS)
STS: Shuttle Transport System (or) Space Transportation System
STScI: Space Telescope Science Institute
SWAS: Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite
SWF: ShortWave Fading
TAL: Transatlantic Abort Landing (Shuttle abort plan)
TAU: Thousand Astronomical Unit (mission)
TCS: Thermal Control System
TDRS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
TDRSS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System
TES: Thermal Emission Spectrometer (on Mars Observer)
TIROS: Television InfraRed Observation Satellite
TLA: Three Letter Acronym
TOMS: Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer
TPS: Thermal Protection System
TSS: Tethered Satellite System
UARS: Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
UBM: Unpressurized Berthing Mechanism
UDMH: Unsymmetrical DiMethyl Hydrazine
UFO: Unidentified Flying Object
UGC: Uppsala General Catalog
UHF: Ultra High Frequency
UIT: Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (Astro package)
UKST: United Kingdom Schmidt Telescope
USAF: United States Air Force
USMP: United States Microgravity Payload
UT: Universal Time (a.k.a. GMT, UTC, or Zulu Time)
UTC: Coordinated Universal Time (a.k.a. UT)
UV: UltraViolet
UVS: UltraViolet Spectrometer
VAB: Vehicle Assembly Building (formerly Vertical Assembly Building)
VAFB: Vandenberg Air Force Base
VEEGA: Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist (Galileo flight path)
VHF: Very High Frequency
VLA: Very Large Array
VLBA: Very Long Baseline Array
VLBI: Very Long Baseline Interferometry
VLF: Very Low Frequency
VLT: Very Large Telescope
VMS: Vertical Motion Simulator
VOIR: Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar (superseded by VRM)
VPF: Vertical Processing Facility
VRM: Venus Radar Mapper (now called Magellan)
WD: White Dwarf
WFPC: Wide Field / Planetary Camera (on HST)
WFPCII: Replacement for WFPC
WIYN: Wisconsin / Indiana / Yale / NOAO telescope
WSMR: White Sands Missile Range
WTR: Western Test Range
WUPPE: Wisconsin Ultraviolet PhotoPolarimter Experiment (Astro package)
XMM: X-ray Multi Mirror
XUV: eXtreme UltraViolet
YSO: Young Stellar Object


#!/usr/bin/perl
# 'alt', An Acronym Scrambling Program, by Larry Wall

$THRESHOLD = 2;

srand;
while (<>) {
    next unless /^([A-Z]\S+): */;
    $key = $1;
    $acro{$key} = $';
    @words = split(/\W+/,$');
    unshift(@words,$key);
    $off = 0;
    foreach $word (@words) {
        next unless $word =~ /^[A-Z]/;
        *w = $&;
        vec($w{$word}, $off++ % 6, 1) = 1;
    }
}

foreach $letter (A .. Z) {
    *w = $letter;
    @w = keys %w;
    if (@w < $THRESHOLD) {
        @d = `egrep '^$letter' /usr/dict/words`;
        chop @d;
        push(@w, @d);
    }
}

foreach $key (sort keys %acro) {
    $off = 0;
    $acro = $acro{$key};
    $acro =~ s/((([A-Z])[A-Z]*)[a-z]*)/ &pick($3, $2, $1, ++$off) || $& /eg;
    print "$key: $acro";
}

sub pick {
    local($letter, $prefix, $oldword, $off) = @_;
    $i = 0;
    if (length($prefix) > 1 && index($key,$prefix) < 0) {
        if ($prefix eq $oldword) {
            $prefix = '';
        }
        else {
            $prefix = $letter;
        }
    }
    if (length($prefix) > 1) {
        local(*w) = substr($prefix,0,1);
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ /^$prefix/i || ++$i > 30;
        $word =~ s/^$prefix/$prefix/i;
        $word;
    }
    elsif (length($prefix) == 1) {
        local(*w) = $prefix;
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && vec($w{$word}, $off, 1) || ++$i > 10;
        $word = "\u\L$word" if $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/;
        $word;
    }
    else {
        local(*w) = substr($oldword,0,1);
        do {
            $word = $w[rand @w];
        } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/ == 0 || ++$i > 30;
        $word;
    }
}


-- Mark Bradford (bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu) <> To err is human, to moo bovine.
                  "It's an ill wind that gathers no moss."



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60151
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)

In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>>Titan IV launches ain't cheap 
>>Granted. But that's because titan IV's are bought by the governemnt. Titan
>>III is actually the cheapest way to put a pound in space of all US expendable
>>launchers.
>
>In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial
>market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?

The problem with Commercial Titan is that MM has made little or no attempt
to market it.  They're basically happy with their government business and
don't want to have to learn how to sell commercially.

A secondary problem is that it is a bit big.  They'd need to go after
multi-satellite launches, a la Ariane, and that complicates the marketing
task quite significantly.

They also had some problems with launch facilities at just the wrong time
to get them started properly.  If memory serves, the pad used for the Mars
Observer launch had just come out of heavy refurbishment work that had
prevented launches from it for a year or so.

There have been a few CT launches.  Mars Observer was one of them.  So
was that stranded Intelsat, and at least one of its brothers that reached
orbit properly.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60153
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

In article <C50zxA.1K9@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1ppm7j$ip@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|>I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing.
|>NASA guys developed the rule,  but no-one knew if it worked
|>until Boeing built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111?????
|
|Nope.  The decisive triumph of the area rule was when Convair's YF-102 --
|contractually commmitted to being a Mach 1.5 fighter and actually found
|to be incapable of going supersonic in level flight -- was turned into
|the area-ruled YF-102A which met the specs.  This was well before either
|the 727 or the FB-111; the 102 flew in late 1953, and Convair spent most
|of the first half of 1954 figuring out what went wrong and most of the
|second half building the first 102A.
|-- 
|All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
|                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry



Good thing i stuck in a couple of question marks up there.

I seem to recall, somebody built  or at least proposed a wasp waisetd
Passenger civil transport.  I thought it was a 727,  but maybe it
was a DC- 8,9???   Sure it had a funny passenger compartment,
but on the other hand  it seemed to save fuel.

I thought Area rules  applied even before transonic speeds,  just
not as badly.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60154
From: dchien@hougen.seas.ucla.edu (David H. Chien)
Subject: Orbit data - help needed

I have the "osculating elements at perigee" of an orbit, which I need
to convert to something useful, preferably distance from the earth
in evenly spaced time intervals. A GSM coordinate system is preferable,
but I convert from other systems. C, pascal, or fortran code, or
if you can point me to a book or something that'd be great.

here's the first few lines of the file.

0  ()
1  (2X, A3, 7X, A30)
2  (2X, I5, 2X, A3, 2X, E24.18)
3  (4X, A3, 7X, E24.18)
1  SMA       SEMI-MAJOR AXIS
1  ECC       ECCENTRICITY
1  INC       INCLINATION
1  OMG       RA OF ASCENDING NODE
1  POM       ARGUMENT OF PERICENTRE
1  TRA       TRUE ANOMALY
1  HAP       APOCENTRE HEIGHT
1  HPE       PERICENTRE HEIGHT
2      3  BEG  0.167290000000000000E+05
3    SMA       0.829159999999995925E+05
3    ECC       0.692307999999998591E+00
3    INC       0.899999999999999858E+02
3    OMG       0.184369999999999994E+03
3    POM       0.336549999999999955E+03
3    TRA       0.359999999999999943E+03
3    HAP       0.133941270127999174E+06
3    HPE       0.191344498719999910E+05
2      1  REF  0.167317532658774153E+05
3    SMA       0.829125167527418671E+05
3    ECC       0.691472268118590319E+00
3    INC       0.899596754214342091E+02
3    OMG       0.184377521828175002E+03
3    POM       0.336683788851850579E+03
3    TRA       0.153847166458030088E-05
3    HAP       0.133866082767180880E+06
3    HPE       0.192026707383028306E+05

Thanks in advance,

larry kepko
lkepko@igpp.ucla.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60155
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <843@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>> The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
>> built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
>> still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
>> technically reasonable.
>>
>
>	November/December, 1987 page 21 - "Science and Technology in Japan".
>			Seawater Uranium Recovery Experiment
>	"The ground uranium reserves are estimated at about 3.6 million tons,
> and it is anticipated that the demand and supply balance will collapse by the
> end of the 20th century.  In Japan, a resources poor country, technological
> development are now under way to economically collect uranium dissolved in
> seawater.  The total quanity of uranium dissolved in seawater is estimated
> to be about 4.6 billion tons, a huge amount when compared with ground uranium
> reserves......."


I hate to pour cold water on this, but currently seawater extracted
uranium, even using the new, improved fiber absorbers from Japan, is
about 20 times more expensive than uranium on the spot market.
Uranium is *very* cheap right now, around $10/lb.  Right now, there
are mines closing because they can't compete with places like Cigar
Lake in Canada (where the ore is so rich they present safety hazards
to the mines, who work in shielded vehicles).  Plenty of other sources
(for example, uranium from phosphate processing) would come on line before
uranium reached $200/lb.

"Demand and supply balance will collapse" is nonsense.  Supply and
demand always balance; what changes is the price.  Is uranium going
to increase in price by a factor of 20 by the end of the century?
Not bloody likely.  New nuclear reactors are not being built
at a sufficient rate.

Uranium from seawater is interesting, but it's a long term project, or
a project that the Japanese might justify on grounds of
self-sufficiency.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60156
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Nasa (dis)incentives

[questions and issues WRT congress raised and discussed}

Dennis Replies;
>Now black when it is white is just white. Except that when black is called
>white money is put into the system in a study to find out just when it is
>justified to call black, white.  It is also apparant that when white is called
>black, just the opposite occurs. Now white is a color, but when white is
>called black, it calls into question the validity of the color spectrum.
...
>It is a given however that NASA nor the military, whose competence in
>differentating black from white is well known (remember the black and
>white paint on the Saturn V rocket?) That nothing will occur here either.
>When black and white are used by congress, who cares nothing for results,
>just more money for pork barrel jobs brought about by the black/white
>controversy....

Dennis, why must you always see things in black and white terms? :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60157
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|
|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to
|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain
|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk
|enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they
|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the
|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.


Fred.

	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year
contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be
damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year
contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much
as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough
Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.

Look at SSF.  THis years funding is 2.2 Billion,  1.8 of which will
cover penalty clauses, due to the re-design.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60158
From: shread@ll.mit.edu ( Peter Shread)
Subject: El Sets

I am looking for a source of orbital element sets
other than UAF/Space Command.  I believe there is
one on CompuServe.  Please let me know what other
possible sources there are and how I can reach 
them.  Thanks much.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60159
From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Subject: Re: Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!)

victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:

>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
> 
>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.

>Does anyone know anything more specific?

>(Yes, this happened LONG before Star Trek and is apparently where they 
>got the reference for the "guy with the ears".)

Yes, long before Star Trek.  Before Einstein, in fact.

Vulcan as a planet inside Mercury was hypothesized to explain a perturbation
of Mercury's orbit that could not be explained by the known planets.  But
Einstein's theory of relativity explained Mercury's motion, and analysis
of Mercury's motion now shows there are _not_ any planets inside its orbit.

-Mike

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60160
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

In my opinion, this seems like a Bad Thing, at least on the surface.
Griffin seemed to be someone who was actually interested in getting
things done, and who was willing to look an innovative approaches to
getting things done faster, better, and cheaper.  It's unclear to me
whether he will be able to do this at his new position.

Does anyone know what his new duties will be?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60161
From: gallas2@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Sean Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Funding for NASA

I am doing a political science paper on the funding of NASA and pork-barrel 
politics.  I would be interested in information about funding practices and
histories of some of the major programs (Apollo, STS, SSF, etc) and the
funding of SSTO to contrast.  Could someone please recommend some sources
that would be useful?  Thank you.
-- 
Sean Gallagher
gallas2@rpi.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60162
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

on Date: 01 Apr 93 18:03:12 GMT, Ralph Buttigieg <ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
writes:
/Why can't the government just be a tennant? Private commercial concerns
/could just build a space station system and charge rent to the government
/financed researchers wanting to use it.

I believe that this was the thought behind the Industrial Space Facility.  I
don't remember all the details, but I think Space Services (?) wanted NASA to 
sign an anchor tenancy deal in order to help secure some venture capital but 
NASA didn't like the deal.  (I'm sure I'll hear about it if I'm wrong!)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60163
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Long Island (was Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF power)

on Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:19:46 GMT, Edmund Hack <arabia!hack> writes:

/In article <1pgdno$3t1@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
/>
/>I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.  
/>
/No, Northrup has a plant on Long Island.

I don't think Northrup ever had a plant on Long Island.  The two main airframe
manufacturers there were (Fairchild)/Republic which closed its doors after the
T-46 cancellation, and Grumman (which is still hanging on last I time I called).
I think Sperry also started there.  If you're ever in the area check out the
Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchell field (now mostly parking lots behind the
Nassau Coliseum and the community college).  Good display of vehicles from Long
Island, including a LEM flight article.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60164
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?

on Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 12:38:50 GMT, Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>
writes:

/in essence, holding a match under the nozzle, is just *nuts*.  One
/thing you absolutely must do in such an engine is to guarantee that
/the propellants ignite as soon as they mix, within milliseconds.  To
/do otherwise is to fill your engine with a high explosive mixture
/which, when it finally does ignite, blows everything to hell.

Definitely! In one of the reports of an early test conducted by Rocketdyne at 
their Santa Susanna Field Lab ("the Hill" above the San Fernando and Simi 
Valleys), the result of a hung start was described as "structural failure" of 
the combustion chamber.  The inspection picture showed pumps with nothing below
, the CC had vaporized!  This was described in a class I took as a "typical
engineering understatement" :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60165
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)

>In article <VNci2B7w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:
>>From: victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking)
>>Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
>>Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 19:31:54 CDT
>>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
>> 
>>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
>>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
>>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.
>>
>>Does anyone know anything more specific?
>>

As I heard the story, before Albert came up the the theory
o'relativity and warped space, nobody could account for
Mercury's orbit.  It ran a little fast (I think) for simple
Newtonian physics.  With the success in finding Neptune to
explain the odd movments of Uranus, it was postulated that there
might be another inner planet to explain Mercury's orbit.  

It's unlikely anything bigger than an asteroid is closer to the
sun than Mercury.  I'm sure we would have spotted it by now.
Perhaps some professionals can confirm that.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| Heaven, n.:                                                   |
|   A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk | 
|   of their own personal affairs, and the good listen with     |
|   attention while you expound your own.                       |
|                  Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60166
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt) writes:

>In article <5APR199318045045@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>> temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>> close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>> comet.  Attempts to determine the comet's orbit has been complicated by
>> the near impossibility of measuring the comet's center of mass.
>>

>Am I missing something -- what does knowing the comet's center
>of mass do for you in orbit determination?

>Shag

I'm not sure, but it almost sounds like they can't figure out where the 
_nucleus_ is within the coma. If they're off by a couple hundred
miles, well, you can imagine the rest...

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60168
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.

This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..

I have seen where people have blown up ballons then sprayed material into them
that then drys and makes hard walls...

Why not do the same thing for a space station..

Fly up the docking rings and baloon materials and such, blow up the baloons,
spin then around (I know a problem in micro gravity) let them dry/cure/harden?
and cut a hole for the docking/attaching ring and bingo a space station..

Of course the ballons would have to be foil covered or someother radiation
protective covering/heat shield(?) and the material used to make the wals would
have to meet the out gasing and other specs or atleast the paint/covering of
the inner wall would have to be human safe.. Maybe a special congrete or maybe
the same material as makes caplets but with some changes (saw where someone
instea dof water put beer in the caplet mixture, got a mix that was just as
strong as congret but easier to carry around and such..)

Sorry for any spelling errors, I missed school today.. (grin)..

Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
going crazy in Nome Alaska, break up is here..

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60169
From: DKELO@msmail.pepperdine.edu (Dan Kelo)
Subject: M-81 Supernova


How 'bout some more info on that alleged supernova in M-81?
I might just break out the scope for this one.
____________________________________________________
"No sir, I don't like it! "-- Mr. Horse
Dan Kelo     dkelo@pepvax.pepperdine.edu
____________________________________________________

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60170
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working
and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either:

* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,

and/or

* A Saturn V went boom.

If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
have concentrated on the moon.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60171
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Portable Small Ground Station?dir

In article <C4zGAM.2nJ@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1993Apr2.214705.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>How difficult would it be to set up your own ground station?
> 
> Ground station for *what*?  At one extreme, some of the amateur-radio
> satellites have sometimes been reachable with hand-held radios.  At the
> other, nothing you can do in your back yard will let you listen in on
> Galileo.  Please be more specific.
> -- 
> All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                     - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry


SPECIFIC:
Basically to be able to do the things the big dadies can do.. Monitor, and
control if need be the Shuttle...

Such as the one in Australia and such....

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60172
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

>Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu>
>Pat> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related
>>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..

>Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech
>Pat> Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.

>Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.

Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these?
I also think the germans did some work on these in WWII.

>Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.

A lot of this was also done by the military...

>Microwave landing systems.  Supercritical wings.  General aviation
>air foils.

Weren't the first microwave landing systems from WWII too?

>--
>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60173
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
>Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
>Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
>shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

>In my opinion, this seems like a Bad Thing, at least on the surface.
>Griffin seemed to be someone who was actually interested in getting
>things done, and who was willing to look an innovative approaches to
>getting things done faster, better, and cheaper.  It's unclear to me
>whether he will be able to do this at his new position.

>Does anyone know what his new duties will be?

First I've heard of it. Offhand:

Griffin is no longer an "office" head, so that's bad.

On the other hand:

Regress seemed to think: we can't fund anything by Griffin, because
that would mean (and we have the lies by the old hardliners about the
$ 400 billion mars mission to prove it) that we would be buying into a
mission to Mars that would cost 400 billion. Therefore there will be
no Artemis or 20 million dollar lunar orbiter et cetera...

They were killing Griffin's main program simply because some sycophants
somewhere had Congress beleivin that to do so would simply be to buy into
the same old stuff. Sorta like not giving aid to Yeltsin because he's
a communist hardliner.

At least now the sort of reforms Griffin was trying to bring forward
won't be trapped in their own little easily contained and defunded
ghetto. That Griffin is staying in some capacity is very very very
good. And if he brings something up, noone can say "why don't you go
back to the OSE where you belong" (and where he couldn't even get money
for design studies).
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60174
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

In article <C4zHKw.3Dn@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <2736@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>This bit interests me.  How much automatic control is there?  Is it
>>purely autonomous or is there some degree of ground control?
> 
> The "stick-and-rudder man" is always the onboard computer.  The computer
> normally gets its orders from a stored program, but they can be overridden
> from the ground.
> 
>>How is
>>the transition from aerodynamic flight (if thats what it is) to hover
>>accomplished?  This is the really new part...
> 
> It's also one of the tricky parts.  There are four different ideas, and
> DC-X will probably end up trying all of them.  (This is from talking to
> Mitch Burnside Clapp, who's one of the DC-X test pilots, at Making Orbit.)
> 
> (1) Pop a drogue chute from the nose, light the engines once the thing
> 	stabilizes base-first.  Simple and reliable.  Heavy shock loads
> 	on an area of structure that doesn't otherwise carry major loads.
> 	Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose
> 	operation is mission-critical.
> 
> (2) Switch off pitch stability -- the DC is aerodynamically unstable at
> 	subsonic speeds -- wait for it to flip, and catch it at 180
> 	degrees, then light engines.  A bit scary.
> 
> (3) Light the engines and use thrust vectoring to push the tail around.
> 	Probably the preferred method in the long run.  Tricky because
> 	of the fuel-feed plumbing:  the fuel will start off in the tops
> 	of the tanks, then slop down to the bottoms during the flip.
> 	Keeping the engines properly fed will be complicated.
> 
> (4) Build up speed in a dive, then pull up hard (losing a lot of speed,
> 	this thing's L/D is not that great) until it's headed up and
> 	the vertical velocity drops to zero, at which point it starts
> 	to fall tail-first.  Light engines.  Also a bit scary, and you
> 	probably don't have enough altitude left to try again.
> -- 
> All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                     - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??
Why do the Martian Landing thing..  Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Please enlighten me... Ignorance is easy to correct. make a mistake and
everyone will let you know you messed up..

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60175
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station, Go Commerical.

Sounds liek what the FED has to do is sign a 50 or more year lease to use
certain parts of a space station that is built and designed and such by a
commerical company or consortium of companies (such as like Alyeska) for a
small amount of rent in return for certain incentives and such.. Such as tax
and other right off and also a monopoly on certain products.. The commerical
builders would have certain perks given to them to make there end easier (taxes
, contracts, regulatory concesions and such..)

Is it workable, just might work..

After all, if China can lease out Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong can
make money, this could work..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60176
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?

Would someone please send me James Oberg's email address, if he has
one and if someone reading this list knows it?  I wanted to send
him a comment on something in his terraforming book.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	Potential explosive yield of the annual global
	production of borax:  5 million megatons

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60177
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: MACH 25 landing site bases?

The supersonic booms hear a few months ago over I belive San Fran, heading east
of what I heard, some new super speed Mach 25 aircraft?? What military based
int he direction of flight are there that could handle a Mach 25aircraft on its
landing decent?? Odd question??

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60178
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1993Mar31.191658.9836@mksol.dseg.ti.com: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
:Just a bit off, Phil.  We don't reprocess nuclear fuel because what
:you get from the reprocessing plant is bomb-grade plutonium.  It is
:also cheaper, given current prices of things, to simply fabricate new
:fuel rods rather than reprocess the old ones, creating potentially
:dangerous materials (from a national security point of view) and then
:fabricate that back into fuel rods.

Fabricating with reprocessed plutonium may result in something that may go
kind of boom, but its hardly decent bomb grade plutonium.  If you want bomb
grade plutonium use a research reactor, not a power reactor.  But if you want
a bomb, don't use plutonium, use uranium.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60179
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the
>Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief
>Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative
>shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?

Unfortunately, things have been boding ill (is that a legitimate conjugation?)
for a while.  While the Office of Exploration had some great ideas, they never
got much money.  I've heard good things about Griffin, but it's hard to want
him back in a job where he couldn't do anything.

>Does anyone know what his new duties will be?

The group examining the Freedom-based space station redesign proposals is 
headed by Michael Griffin, "NASA's cheif engineer" in the words of Space News.
I believe this is him.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de la realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60180
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

[Excellent discussion of DC-X landing techniques by Henry deleted]

>Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??

The DC-X will not take of horizontally.  It takes of vertically. 

>Why do the Martian Landing thing.. 

For several reasons.  Vertical landings don't require miles of runway and limit
noise pollution.  They don't require wheels or wings.  Just turn on the engines
and touch down.  Of course, as Henry pointed out, vetical landings aren't quite
that simple.

>Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
>much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

Well, to be blunt, yes.  But at least you're learning.

>Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then...

The Soyuz vehicles use parachutes for the descent and then fire small rockets
just before they hit the ground.  Parachutes are, however, not especially
practical if you want to reuse something without much effort.  The landings
are also not very comfortable.  However, in the words of Georgy Grechko,
"I prefer to have bruises, not to sink."


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de la realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60181
From: ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in
first and second grade (69-70, 70-71).  They came in Chocolate,
strawberry, and peanut butter and were cylinders about 10cm long
and 1cm in diameter wrapped in yellow space foil (well, it seemed
like space foil at the time).  

The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.

Man, these were my "60's."


-- 
Gavin Helf
UC Berkeley Political Science
Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies
ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60182
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Area Rule (was Re: Space Research Spin Off)

Can somebody elaborate on "Area Ruling".  I gather it's something to
do with aerodynamics of trans-sonic planes, and can be summarised as
"Coke bottle good, Coke can bad".  Anyone provide more details,
derivation etc?
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60183
From: seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>comet.

Ooooh -- who would have thought that Galileo would get the chance to
check out a comet TOO?!?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60184
From: drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: So I'm an idiot, what else is new?


In article <9303311213.AA49462@jsc.nasa.gov>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu (R. E. McElwaine) writes:
|> RUSSIA'S OPERATIVE
|> 
|>                In March 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
|>           proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
|>           defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) AGAINST
...

Funny.  A bit disturbing.  Forging a posting seems somewhat unethical, even
if the subject is as notorious as McElwaine.

Followups should definitely not go to sci.space.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60185
From: roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson)
Subject: Re: Magellan Venus Maps (Thanks)


Thanks Ron and Peter for some very nice maps.

I have an advice though.  You wrote that the maps were reduced to 256
colors.  As far ad I understand JPEG pictures gets much better (and
the compressed files smaller) if you use the original 3 color 24 bit
data when converting to JPEG.

Thanks again,

--
Roland Karlsson             SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Internet: roland@sics.se    Tel: +46 8 752 15 40          Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Telex: 812 6154 7011 SICS   Ttx: 2401-812 6154 7011=SICS

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60187
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: SSF Redesign: Constellation

SSF is up for redesign again.  Let's do it right this
time!  Let's step back and consider the functionality we want:

[1] microgravity/vacuum process research
[2] life sciences research (adaptation to space)
[3] spacecraft maintenence 

The old NASA approach, explified by Shuttle and SSF so far, was to
centralize functionality.  These projects failed to meet
their targets by a wide margin: the military and commercial users 
took most of their payloads off Shuttle after wasting much effort to 
tie their payloads to it, and SSF has crumbled into disorganization
and miscommunication.  Over $50 billion has been spent on these
two projects with no reduction in launch costs and littel improvement
in commercial space industrialization.  Meanwhile, military and commercial 
users have come up with a superior strategy for space development: the 
constellation.  

Firstly, different functions are broken down into different 
constellations placed in the optimal orbit for each function:
thus we have the GPS/Navstar constellation in 12-hour orbits,
comsats in Clarke and Molniya orbits, etc.  Secondly, the task
is distributed amongst several spacecraft in a constellation,
providing for redundancy and full coverage where needed.

SSF's 3 main functions require quite different environments
and are also prime candidates for constellization.

[1] We have the makings of a microgravity constellation now:
COMET and Mir for long-duration flights, Shuttle/Spacelab for
short-duration flights.  The best strategy for this area is
inexpensive, incremental improvement: installation of U.S. facilities 
on Mir, Shuttle/Mir linkup, and transition from Shuttle/Spacelab
to a much less expensive SSTO/Spacehab/COMET or SSTO/SIF/COMET.
We might also expand the research program to take advantage of 
interesting space environments, eg the high-radiation Van Allen belt 
or gas/plasma gradients in comet tails.  The COMET system can
be much more easily retrofitted for these tasks, where a 
station is too large to affordably launch beyond LEO.

[2] We need to study life sciences not just in microgravity,
but also in lunar and Martian gravities, and in the radiation
environments of deep space instead of the protected shelter
of LEO.  This is a very long-term, low-priority project, since
astronauts will have little practical use in the space program
until costs come down orders of magnitude.  Furthermore, using
astronauts severely restricts the scope of the investigation,
and the sample size.  So I propose LabRatSat, a constellation
tether-bolo satellites that test out various levels of gravity
in super-Van-Allen-Belt orbits that are representative of the
radiation environment encountered on Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars,
Earth-asteroid, etc. trips.  The miniaturized life support
machinery might be operated real-time from earth thru a VR
interface.  AFter several orbital missions have been flown,
follow-ons can act as LDEFs on the lunar and Martian surface,
testing out the actual environment at low cost before $billions
are spent on astronauts.

[3] By far the largest market for spacecraft servicing is in 
Clarke orbit.  I propose a fleet of small teleoperated
robots and small test satellites on which ground engineers can
practice their skills.  Once in place, robots can pry stuck
solar arrays and antennas, attach solar battery power packs,
inject fuel, etc.  Once the fleet is working, it can be
spun off to commercial company(s) who can work with the comsat
companies to develop comsat replaceable module standards.

By applying the successful constellation strategy, and getting
rid of the failed centralized strategy of STS and old SSF, we
have radically improved the capability of the program while
greatly cutting its cost.  For a fraction of SSF's pricetag,
we can fix satellites where the satellites are, we can study
life's adaptation to a much large & more representative variety 
of space environments, and we can do microgravity and vacuum
research inexpensively and, if needed, in special-purpose
orbits.

N.B., we can apply the constellation strategy to space exploration
as well, greatly cutting its cost and increasing its functionality.  
Mars Network and Artemis are two good examples of this; more ambitiously 
we can set up a network of native propellant plants on Mars that can be used
to fuel planet-wide rover/ballistic hopper prospecting and
sample return.  The descendants of LabRatSat's technology can
be used as a Mars surface LDEF and to test out closed-ecology
greenhouses on Mars at low cost.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60188
From: drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Quaint US Archaisms


In article <C512wC.B0M.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> Oh, and the other advantage is that you don't have shit constants like
|> 32.??? hanging around.

No, instead you have stupid things like 3600 and 86400 and 31556925.9747 and
299792.458 and 9.80665 and ...

How many cc's in a ml anyway?  The metric system has its problems, just not
as many of them.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60189
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: The Area Rule

I read it refered to as the "parabolic cross-section" rule;
the idea was that if you plot the area of the fuselage cross-
section as a function of the point fore-and-aft along the 
fuselage, a plot that is a **paraboloid** minimizes somethin' 
or 'nother (to be technical about it).


-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60190
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)

In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>>[Titan III is the cheapest US launcher on a $/lb basis]

>In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial
>market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?

They have a few problems. The biggest technical problem is the need to find
two satellites going to the same rough orbit for a luanch.

They also don't show much interest in commercial launches. There is more
money to be made churning out Titan IV's for the government. After all,
it isn't every day you find a sucker, er, customer who thinks paying
three times the commercial rate for launch services is a good idea!

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------71 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60191
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Why can't the government just be a tennant?

>I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
>current spending rules don't permit it to be workable. 

Actually, that is no longer true. In the last few years Congress has
ammended laws to provide whatever is needed. Note that both Spacehab
and Comet are funded this way.

The problems aren't legal nor technical. The problem is NASA's culture.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------71 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60192
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: space food sticks

John Elson (jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" 

I remember those awful things.  They were dry and crumbly, and I
recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they
kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G.  She had no clue.
I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.

Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.

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

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60193
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Metric vs English

In <1993Apr5.195215.16833@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

>Keith Mancus (mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> > SI neatly separates the concepts of "mass", "force" and "weight"
>> > which have gotten horribly tangled up in the US system.
>> 
>>   This is not a problem with English units.  A pound is defined to
>> be a unit of force, period.  There is a perfectly good unit called
>> the slug, which is the mass of an object weighing 32.2 lbs at sea level.
>> (g = 32.2 ft/sec^2, of course.)
>> 

>American Military English units, perhaps.  Us real English types were once 
>taught that a pound is mass and a poundal is force (being that force that
>causes 1 pound to accelerate at 1 ft.s-2).  We had a rare olde tyme doing 
>our exams in those units and metric as well.

American, perhaps, but nothing military about it.  I learned (mostly)
slugs when we talked English units in high school physics and while
the teacher was an ex-Navy fighter jock the book certainly wasn't
produced by the military.

[Poundals were just too flinking small and made the math come out
funny; sort of the same reason proponents of SI give for using that.] 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60194
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Market or gov failures

In <C4tCL8.7xI.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:


>[Fred saying that gov coercive poser is necessary for any space program]

>I reply;
>>>BTW, Fred, you've really crossed the border, since you admit that the ideas
>>>you support can only be carried out with coercive power.  Now that's really
>>>f***in' intolerant, so get off yer high horse about tolerance.

>Fred replies;
>>No, Tommy, I "admit" that there are such things as 'market failures'
>>which necessitate intervention by other than capitalist forces to
>>correct.

>I guess your understanding of this 'market failure' should be classified
>under Phil's 'economics on the level of 19th century medicine', since you
>apparently completely ignored that this 'market failure' can as easily,
>or even much more easily, be attributed to "government intervention
>failure".  So, in addition to a strong moral argument against what you
>propose, there is also a strong utilitarian argument, namely that gov's
>destruction of wealth through confiscastory taxation and redistribution
>on a major scale has made significant private capital investments harder
>to make.

I note that you make no such case as you claim can be 'even more
easily made'.  Yes, the argument can (and has) been made that current
government policy creates even larger market barriers than there were
in the first place, but there is no such term as 'government failure',
since the government can change policies whenever it pleases.  The
market doesn't do that and is governed by (relatively) well-understood
forces.  This libertopican bilge about 'moral arguments' about
taxation, etc., is, at bottom, so much simplistic economic thinking.
It can only be 'justified' by cliche derision of anyone who knows more
about economics than the libertopian -- which is what invariably
happens.  Tripe a la Tommy, the new libertopian dish.

>>Get a clue, little boy, and go salve your wounded pride in my not
>>considering you infallible in some other fashion.  I'm not interested
>>in your ego games.

>Puh-leese, Fred.  This, besides being simply an attempt to be insulting,
>really belongs on private mail.  If 'ego-games' are so unimportatnt to
>you, why the insults and this strange negative attatchment for me?

Wherever do you get this inflated idea of your own importance?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60195
From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
>Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
>upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
>of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
>have concentrated on the moon.

Great speculation - I remember being proud on behalf of all the free
world (you think that way when you are seven years old) that we had
got there first. Now I'm almost sorry that it worked out that way.

I guess the soviets would have taken the victory seriously too, and
would almost certainly not have fallen victim to the complacency that
overtook the US program. Perhaps stretching to match US efforts would
have destabilized them sooner than it did in fact - and in the tradition
of Marvel Comics 'What If', this destabilization in the Brezhnev era might
have triggered the third world war. Hmm, maybe it was a giant leap after all.

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60196
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <1993Apr1.204657.29451@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator,
>>>perhaps with some left over.  A very high power (100's of MW CW or
>>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears
>>>achievable using a linear accelerator.  The biggest question mark
>>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all
>>>the elements being incinerated.
>>
>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like
>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?

>Fred, the honest thing to do would be to admit your criticism on
>scientific grounds was invalid, rather than pretend you were actually
>talking about engineering feasibility.  Given you postings, I can't
>say I am surprised, though.

Well, pardon me for trying to continue the discussion rather than just
tugging my forelock in dismay at having not considered actually trying
to recover the energy from this process (which is at least trying to
go the 'right' way on the energy curve).  Now, where *did* I put those
sackcloth and ashes?

[I was not and am not 'pretending' anything; I am *so* pleased you are
not surprised, though.]

>No, it is nothing like perpetual motion.  

Note that I didn't say it was perpetual motion, or even that it
sounded like perpetual motion; the phrase was "sounds almost like
perpetual motion", which I, at least, consider a somewhat different
propposition than the one you elect to criticize.  Perhaps I should
beg your pardon for being *too* precise in my use of language?

>The physics is well
>understood; the energy comes from fission of actinides in subcritical
>assemblies.  Folks have talked about spallation reactors since the
>1950s.  Pulsed spallation neutron sources are in use today as research
>tools.  Accelerator design has been improving, particularly with
>superconducting accelerating cavities, which helps feasibility.  Los
>Alamos has expertise in high current accelerators (LAMPF), so I
>believe they know what they are talking about.

I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching
technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the
trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of
separating things first and having a different 'run' for each
actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull
(relatively) clean material out the other.  Once the costs,
technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this
one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun.  Sure, it's possible
and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable
approach? 

And I still wonder at what sort of 'burning' rate you could get with
something like this, as opposed to what kind of energy you would
really recover as opposed to what it would cost to build and power
with and without the energy recovery.  Are we talking ounces, pounds,
or tons (grams, kilograms, or metric tons, for you SI fans) of
material and are we talking days, weeks, months, or years (days,
weeks, months or years, for you SI fans -- hmmm, still using a
non-decimated time scale, I see  ;-))?

>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
>built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
>technically reasonable.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60197
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <841@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>>	Well this pretty much says it.  I have gotten alot of replys to this
>>and it looks like oil is only on Earth.  So if those greedy little oil companys
>>who obviously don't give **** about it uses up all the oil then that leaves us
>>high a dry.

>Greedy little oil companies?  Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the 
>demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet.  If we
>run out, its all our faults.

He also ignores a few other things.  While organics would become
significantly more expensive were all the oil to disappear (and thus
some things would no longer be economically feasible), oil is hardly
an irreplaceable resource any more than most other consumables.  As
supply decreases, prices rise and alternatives become more
competetive.  He also needs to consider that there has been an
estimated 30 years of reserves pretty much as long as anyone has cared
about petroleum; whatever the current usage rate is, we always seem to
have about a 30 year reserve that we know about.

[I'm not sure that last figure is still true -- we tend not to look as
hard when prices are comparatively cheap -- but it was certainly true
during hte 'oil crisis' days of the 70's.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60198
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: STS-56 Press Kit

Does anyone know ifthe STS-56 email press kit was ever released?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60199
From: lochem@fys.ruu.nl (Gert-Jan van Lochem)
Subject: Dutch: symposium compacte objecten

Sterrenkundig symposium 'Compacte Objecten'
                                             op 26 april 1993


In het jaar 1643, zeven jaar na de oprichting van de
Universiteit van Utrecht, benoemde de universiteit haar
eerste sterrenkundige waarnemer. Hiermee ontstond de tweede
universiteitssterrenwacht ter wereld. Aert Jansz, de eerste
waarnemer, en zijn opvolgers voerden de Utrechtse sterrenkunde
in de daaropvolgende jaren, decennia en eeuwen naar de
voorhoede van het astronomisch onderzoek. Dit jaar is het 350
jaar geleden dat deze historische benoeming plaatsvond.

De huidige generatie Utrechtse sterrenkundigen en studenten
sterrenkunde, verenigd in het Sterrekundig Instituut Utrecht,
vieren de benoeming van hun 'oervader' middels een breed scala
aan feestelijke activiteiten. Zo is er voor scholieren een
planetenproject, programmeert de Studium Generale een aantal
voordrachten met een sterrenkundig thema en wordt op de Dies
Natalis aan een astronoom een eredoctoraat uitgereikt. Er
staat echter meer op stapel.

Studenten natuur- en sterrenkunde kunnen op 26 april aan een
sterrenkundesymposium deelnemen. De onderwerpen van het
symposium zijn opgebouwd rond een van de zwaartepunten van het
huidige Utrechtse onderzoek: het onderzoek aan de zogeheten
'compacte objecten', de eindstadia in de evolutie van sterren.
Bij de samenstelling van het programma is getracht de
deelnemer een zo aktueel en breed mogelijk beeld te geven van
de stand van zaken in het onderzoek aan deze eindstadia. In de
eerste, inleidende lezing zal dagvoorzitter prof. Lamers een
beknopt overzicht geven van de evolutie van zware sterren,
waarna de zeven overige sprekers in lezingen van telkens een
half uur nader op de specifieke evolutionaire eindprodukten
zullen ingaan. Na afloop van elke lezing is er gelegenheid tot
het stellen van vragen. Het dagprogramma staat afgedrukt op
een apart vel.
Het niveau van de lezingen is afgestemd op tweedejaars
studenten natuur- en sterrenkunde. OOK ANDERE BELANGSTELLENDEN
ZIJN VAN HARTE WELKOM!

Tijdens de lezing van prof. Kuijpers zullen, als alles goed
gaat, de veertien radioteleskopen van de Radiosterrenwacht
Westerbork worden ingezet om via een directe verbinding tussen
het heelal, Westerbork en Utrecht het zwakke radiosignaal van
een snel roterende kosmische vuurtoren, een zogeheten pulsar,
in de symposiumzaal door te geven en te audiovisualiseren.
Prof. Kuijpers zal de binnenkomende signalen (elkaar snel
opvolgende scherp gepiekte pulsen radiostraling) bespreken en
trachten te verklaren.
Het slagen van dit unieke experiment staat en valt met de
technische haalbaarheid ervan. De op te vangen signalen zijn
namelijk zo zwak, dat pas na een waarnemingsperiode van 10
miljoen jaar genoeg energie is opgevangen om een lamp van 30
Watt een seconde te laten branden! Tijdens het symposium zal
er niet zo lang gewacht hoeven te worden: de hedendaagse
technologie stelt ons in staat live het heelal te beluisteren.

Deelname aan het symposium kost f 4,- (exclusief lunch) en
f 16,- (inclusief lunch). Inschrijving geschiedt door het
verschuldigde bedrag over te maken op ABN-AMRO rekening
44.46.97.713 t.n.v. stichting 350 JUS. Het gironummer van de
ABN-AMRO bank Utrecht is 2900. Bij de inschrijving dient te
worden aangegeven of men lid is van de NNV. Na inschrijving
wordt de symposiummap toegestuurd. Bij inschrijving na
31 maart vervalt de mogelijkheid een lunch te reserveren.

Het symposium vindt plaats in Transitorium I,
Universiteit Utrecht.

Voor meer informatie over het symposium kan men terecht bij
Henrik Spoon, p/a S.R.O.N., Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht.
Tel.: 030-535722. E-mail: henriks@sron.ruu.nl.



******* DAGPROGRAMMA **************************************


 9:30   ONTVANGST MET KOFFIE & THEE

10:00   Opening
           Prof. dr. H.J.G.L.M. Lamers (Utrecht)

10:10   Dubbelster evolutie
           Prof. dr. H.J.G.L.M. Lamers

10:25   Radiopulsars
           Prof. dr. J.M.E. Kuijpers (Utrecht)

11:00   Pulsars in dubbelster systemen
           Prof. dr. F. Verbunt (Utrecht)

11:50   Massa & straal van neutronensterren
           Prof. dr. J. van Paradijs (Amsterdam)

12:25   Theorie van accretieschijven
           Drs. R.F. van Oss (Utrecht)

13:00   LUNCH

14:00   Hoe zien accretieschijven er werkelijk uit?
           Dr. R.G.M. Rutten (Amsterdam)

14:35   Snelle fluktuaties bij accretie op neutronensterren
        en zwarte gaten
           Dr. M. van der Klis (Amsterdam)

15:10   THEE & KOFFIE

15:30   Zwarte gaten: knippen en plakken met ruimte en tijd
           Prof. dr. V. Icke (leiden)

16:05   afsluiting

16:25   BORREL

-- 
Gert-Jan van Lochem	     \\		"What is it?"
Fysische informatica	      \\	"Something blue"
Universiteit Utrecht           \\	"Shapes, I need shapes!"
030-532803			\\			- HHGG -

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60200
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Cosmos 2238

I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993-
018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short,
EVERYTHING! Can you help?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60201
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr6.061329.25582@den.mmc.com>, seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes...
>baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
>>temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
>>close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
>>comet.
> 
>Ooooh -- who would have thought that Galileo would get the chance to
>check out a comet TOO?!?

Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60202
From: msmilor@skat.usc.edu (Mark Smilor)
Subject: Summer Internships


	
        Hi Folks not exactly certain if this is the best place to ask, but I am
searching for a summer internship in engineering.  I will be graduating in early
 May with a B.S. in aerospace engineering and then pursuing my Masters this Fall
.Does anyone know of anything that is available, I am in the process of applyi
ng to some of the larger companies (ie. MacDac, Martin Marietta, Lockheed.  If a
nyone knows of anything I would appreciate it if you could mail it to me.

Thanks in advance

Mark Smilor
msmilor@skat.usc.edu
or
smilor@aludra.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60203
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu> ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes:
> I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in
> first and second grade (69-70, 70-71).  They came in Chocolate,
> strawberry, and peanut butter and were cylinders about 10cm long
> and 1cm in diameter wrapped in yellow space foil (well, it seemed
> like space foil at the time).  

Wasn't there a "plain" flavor too?  They looked more like some
kind of extruded industrial product than food -- perfectly
smooth cylinders with perfectly smooth ends.  Kinda scary.

> The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
> most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
> a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
> approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.

An other post described it as like a "microwaved Tootsie Roll" --
which captures the texture pretty well.  As for taste, they were
like candy, only not very sweet -- does that make sense? I recall
liking them for their texture, not taste. I guess I have well
developed texture buds.

> Man, these were my "60's."

It was obligatory to eat a few while watching "Captain Scarlet".
Does anybody else remember _that_, as long as we're off the
topic of space?

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60204
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu>, matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
> Greedy little oil companies?  Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the
> demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet.  If we
> run out, its all our faults.
>

	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
Any comments?

						Will...

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60205
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste


	Thanks for the Update.

							Will...

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60206
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: space food sticks


In article <C50z77.EE6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Elson) writes:
>Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This
>was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along
>with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people
>who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy. 
>Any information would be greatly appreciated. 

A freeze dried Tootsie Roll (tm).  The actual taste sensation was like nothing
you will ever willingly experience.  The amazing thing was that we ate a second
one, and a third and ....

I doubt that they actually flew on missions, as I'm certain they did "bad
things" to the gastrointestinal tract.  Compared to Space Food Sticks, Tang was
a gastronomic contribution to mankind.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |

PS. I don't think Tang flew, either.  Although it was developed under contract.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60207
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope

In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah Millgram) writes:


>A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing
>the envelope" comes from.  Anyone out there know?

Every aircraft has flight constraints for speed/AOA/power.  When
graphed, these define the 'flight envelope' of that aircraft,
presumably so named because the graphed line encloses (envelopes) the
area on the graph that represents conditions where the aircraft
doesn't fall out of the sky.  Hence, 'pushing the envelope' becomes
'operating at (or beyond) the edge of the flight (or operational)
envelope'. 

Note that the envelope isn't precisely known until someone actually
flies the airplane in those regions -- up to that point, all there are
are the theoretical predictions.  Hence, one of the things test pilots
do for a living is 'push the envelope' to find out how close the
correspondence between the paper airplane and the metal one is -- in
essence, 'pushing back' the edges of the theoretical envelope to where
the airplane actually starts to fail to fly.  Note, too, that this is
done is a quite calculated and careful way; flight tests are generally
carefully coreographed and just what is going to be 'pushed' and how
far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans,
such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed
taxi tests).

I'm sure Mary can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about
this process (and then some).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60208
From: ml@chiron.astro.uu.se (Mats Lindgren)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

Comet P/Helin-Roman-Crockett also spent some time as a temporary
satellite to Jupiter a few years ago if you believe the calculations
by Tancredi, G., Lindgren, M. and  Rickman, H.(Astron. Astrophys., 
239, pp. 375-380, 1990).
-- 


-------------------------------------------------------------
|  Mats Lindgren             |  Mats.Lindgren@astro.uu.se   |
|  Astronomical Observatory  |  21619::laban::ml            |
|  Box 515                   |                              |
|  751 20 Uppsala            |  Phone (+46) (0)18 51 35 22  |
|  Sweden                    |  Fax               52 75 83  |
-------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60209
From: enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist)
Subject: Re: Abyss: breathing fluids

In article <93089.204431GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I am a bit nervous about posting this beacause it is begining to
>stray fron the topic of space but then again that doesn't seem to
>stop alot of other people. :-)
>
>With all of this talk about breathing at high pressures, I began
>to think about the movie Abyss. If you remember, in that movie one
>of the characters dove to great depths by wearing a suit that used
>a fluid that carries oxegen as opposed to some sort of gas. Now I
>have heard that mice can breath this fluid but for some reason, humans
>are unable to. Does anyone know more details about this?
>
>Gregson Vaux
>

I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump
the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes.
So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on 
hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times
as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas
and liquid comparision of course!

Acurist









Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60210
From: glover@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Eric Glover)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr06.020021.186145@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working
>and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either:
>* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,
>and/or
>* A Saturn V went boom.

The Apollo fire was harsh, A Saturn V explosion would have been
hurtful but The Soviets winning would have been crushing. That could have
been *the* technological turning point for the US turning us
from Today's "We can do anything, we're *the* Super Power" to a much more
reserved attitude like the Soviet Program today.

Kennedy was gone by 68\69, the war was still on is the east, I think
the program would have stalled badly and the goal of the moon
by 70 would have been dead with Nasa trying to figure were they went wrong.
 
>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
>Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
>upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base
>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
>of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would
>have concentrated on the moon.

I speulate that:
+The Saturn program would have been pushed into
the 70s with cost over runs that would just be too evil. 
Nixon still wins.
+The Shuttle was never proposed and Skylab never built.
+By 73 the program stalled yet again under the fuel crisis.
+A string of small launches mark the mid seventies.
+By 76 the goal of a US man on the moon is dead and the US space program
drifts till the present day.


>/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
>| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
>| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
>| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
>|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60211
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Abyss: breathing fluids

In article <C4t3K3.498@cck.coventry.ac.uk> enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes:
|
|I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump
|the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes.
|So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on 
|hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times
|as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas
|and liquid comparision of course!


Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid.
Sorta like the portable Iron Lung?   Put some sort of flex tubing
around the 'aquanauts' chest.  Cyclically compress it  and it will
push enough on the chest wall to support breathing?????

You'd have to trust your breather,  but in space, you have to trust
your suit anyway.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60212
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope

> In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah  
Millgram) writes:
> 
> 
> A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing
> the envelope" comes from.  Anyone out there know?
> 
Everbody has been defining envelope.
Why was the world "envelope" chosen, rather than say "shell", 
or "boundary".  In analogy with the envelopes of airships perhaps?

Actually, "shell" might be good.  Push the shell too hard and
it (the aircraft?) breaks. 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60213
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Cosmos 2238: an EORSAT

>Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 15:40:47 GMT

>I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993-
>018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short,
>EVERYTHING! Can you help?

>-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ocean Reconnaissance Launch Surprises West
Space News, April 5-11, 1993, p.2
[Excerpts]
     Russia launched its first ocean reconnaissance satellite in 26 months 
March 30, confounding Western analysts who had proclaimed the program dead. 
     The Itar-TASS news agency announced the launch of Cosmos 2238 from 
Plesetsk Cosmodrome, but provided little description of the payload's mission. 
     However, based on the satellite's trajectory, Western observers 
identified it as a military spacecraft designed to monitor electronic 
emissions from foreign naval ships in order to track their movement. 
     Geoff Perry of the Kettering Group in England... [said]  Western 
observers had concluded that no more would be launched. But days after the 
last [such] satellite re-entered the Earth's atmosphere, Cosmos 2238 was 
launched. 

"Cosmos-2238" Satellite Launched for Defense Ministry
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian  1238 GMT 30 March 1993
Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27
by ITAR-TASS correspondent Veronika Romanenkova
     Moscow, 30 March -- The Cosmos-2238 satellite was launched at 1600 Moscow 
time today from the Baykonur by a "Tsiklon-M" carrier rocket. An ITAR-TASS 
correspondent was told at the press center of Russia's space-military forces 
that the satellite was launched in the interests of the Russian Defense 
Ministry. 

Parameters Given
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 0930 GMT 31 March 1993
Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27
     Moscow, 31 March -- Another artificial Earth satellite, Cosmos-2238, was 
launched on 30 March from the Baykonur cosmodrome. 
     The satellite carries scientific apparatus for continuing space research. 
The satellite has been placed in an orbit with the following parameters: 
initial period of revolution--92.8 minutes; apogee--443 km; perigee--413 km; 
orbital inclination--65 degrees. 
     Besides scientific apparatus the satellite carries a radio system for the 
precise measurement of orbital elements and a radiotelemetry system for 
transmitting to Earth data about the work of the instruments and scientific 
apparatus. The apparatus aboard the satellite is working normally. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60214
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.

What would all of you out there in net land think of the big 6 (Martin
Mariatta, Boeing, Mcdonell Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Rockwell)
getting together, and forming a consortium to study exactly what the market
price pints are for building reusable launch vehicles, and spending say
$3million to do that.  Recognizing that most of the military requirements
for launch vehicles are pulled out of a hat somewhere (say, has the shuttle 
ever really used that 1200mi crossrange capability?  You get the idea, figure
out how many, how often, where to, etc...)

Then taking this data, and forming a sematech type company (bad example, I
know... but at least its an example...)  To develop between 3 and 5 craft
designs.  Then to take all of those designs, and figure out EXACTLY what
the technologies are, and demonstrate those technologies, in order to 
eliminate designs that can't be built today.  And lets say that this
portion again funded by the GOV cost about $20 million.

And from here all of these companies went their separate ways, with the
intention of taking all of the market data and the design data to wall
street, and saying "I want to build this vehicle, and here are the numbers
that show %20 ROI, fund me...)


Now many of you think that this is a joke, but I have it on good authority that
just this project is shaping up in the background. It seems that the aerospace
companies have learned that everyone yelling similar but different things
ends up in many programs that do nothing much and get canceled (NASP, NLS,
ALS, DCY?, etc...)  They need to work more in the japaneese, and european
spirit of initial cooperation.  They have also learned that design requirements
that are phony (I.E. some generals idea of what a space vehicle ought to be)
ends up getting chopped up in congress, because it is not a REAL requirement.

Any feedback?

			John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60215
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections.

The following are my thoughts on a meeting that I, Hugh Kelso, and Bob Lilly
had with an aide of Sen. Patty Murrays.  We were there to discuss SSTO, and
commercial space.  This is how it went...



After receiving a packet containing a presentation on the benifits of SSTO,
I called and tried to schedule a meeting with our local Senator (D) Patty
Murray, Washington State.  I started asking for an hour, and when I heard
the gasp on the end of the phone, I quickly backed off to 1/2 an hour.
Later in that conversation, I learned that a standard appointment is 15 minutes.

We got the standard bozo treatment.  That is, we were called back by an aide,
who scheduled a meeting with us, in order to determine that we were not
bozos, and to familiarize himself with the material, and to screen it, to 
make sure that it was appropriate to take the senators time with that material.

Well, I got allocated 1/2 hour with Sen. Murrays aide, and we ended up talking
to him for 45 minutes, with us ending the meeting, and him still listening.
We covered a lot of ground, and only a little tiny bit was DCX specific.  
Most of it was a single stage reusable vehicle primer.  There was another
woman there who took copius quantities of notes on EVERY topic that
we brought up.

But, with Murray being new, we wanted to entrench ourselves as non-corporate
aligned (I.E. not speaking for boeing) local citizens interentested in space.
So, we spent a lot of time covering the benifits of lower cost access to
LEO.  Solar power satellites are a big focus here, so we hit them as becoming 
feasible with lower cost access, and we hit the environmental stand on that.
We hit the tourism angle, and I left a copy of the patric Collins Tourism
paper, with side notes being that everyone who goes into space, and sees the
atmosphere becomes more of an environmentalist, esp. after SEEING the smog
over L.A.  We hit on the benifits of studying bone decalcification (which is 
more pronounced in space, and said that that had POTENTIAL to lead to 
understanding of, and MAYBE a cure for osteoporosis.  We hit the education 
whereby kids get enthused by space, but as they get older and find out that
they havent a hop in hell of actually getting there, they go on to other
fields, with low cost to orbit, the chances they might get there someday 
would provide greater incentive to hit the harder classes needed.

We hit a little of the get nasa out of the operational launch vehicle business
angle.  We hit the lower cost of satellite launches, gps navigation, personal
communicators, tellecommunications, new services, etc...  Jobs provided
in those sectors.

Jobs provided building the thing, balance of trade improvement, etc..
We mentioned that skypix would benifit from lower launch costs.

We left the paper on what technologies needed to be invested in in order
to make this even easier to do.  And he asked questions on this point.

We ended by telling her that we wanted her to be aware that efforts are
proceeding in this area, and that we want to make sure that the
results from these efforts are not lost (much like condor, or majellan),
and most importantly, we asked that she help fund further efforts along
the lines of lowering the cost to LEO.

In the middle we also gave a little speal about the Lunar Resource Data 
Purchase act, and the guy filed it separately, he was VERY interested in it.
He asked some questions about it, and seemed like he wanted to jump on it,
and contact some of the people involved with it, so something may actually
happen immediatly there.

The last two things we did were to make sure that they knew that we
knew a lot of people in the space arena here in town, and that they
could feel free to call us any time with questions, and if we didn't know
the answers, that we would see to it that they questions got to people who
really did know the answers.

Then finally, we asked for an appointment with the senator herself.  He
said that we would get on the list, and he also said that knowing her, this
would be something that she would be very interested in, although they
do have a time problem getting her scheduled, since she is only in the
state 1 week out of 6 these days.

All in all we felt like we did a pretty good job.

			John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60216
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:19:59 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said:

Phil> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

>Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> Pat>
>nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Question is can someone give me 10
>examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity
>in general? It will be interesting to see..

>Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech Pat>
>Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.

>Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.

Phil> Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these?  I also think
Phil> the germans did some work on these in WWII.

The NACA came up with them before World War II.  NASA is directly
descended from the NACA, with space added in.

You'll notice that I didn't mention sweep wings even though the
X-5, tested at what's now Dryden, had them.  We did steal that one
dirctly from the Germans.  The difference is that swept wings don't
change their angle of sweep, sweep wings do.  Perhaps the similarity
of names has caused some confusion?  747s have swept wings, F-111s
have sweep wings.

>Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.

Phil> A lot of this was also done by the military...

After NASA aerodynamicists proposed them and NASA test teams
demonstrated them.  Richard Whitcomb and R.T. Jones, at Langley
Research Center, were giants in the field.

Dryden was involved in the flight testing of winglets and area
ruling (in the 70s and 50s, respectively).  It's true that we
used military aircraft as the testbeds (KC-135 and YF-102) but
that had more to do with availability and need than with military
involvement.  The YF-102 was completely ours and the KC-135 was
bailed to us.  The Air Force, of course, was interested in our
results and supportive of our efforts.

Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No
mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were.
General Dynamics decided to make the F-16 flyby-wire when they saw how
successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)

Phil> Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!  

The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
can't do.


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60217
From: adam@sw.stratus.com (Mark Adam)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu>, ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes:
> The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly.  It was
> most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar."  Sort of
> a toffee injected with vitamins.  The chocolate Power Bar is a rough
> approximation of the taste.  Strawberry sucked.
> 

Peanut butter was definitely my favorite. I don't think I ever took a second bite
of the strawberry.

I recently joined Nutri-System and their "Chewy Fudge Bar" is very reminicent of
the chocolate Space Food. This is the only thing I can find that even comes close
the taste. It takes you back... your taste-buds are happy and your
intestines are in knots... joy!

-- 

mark ----------------------------
(adam@paix.sw.stratus.com)	|	My opinions are not those of Stratus.
				|	Hell! I don`t even agree with myself!

	"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60218
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
|Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
|been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
|may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
|make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
|Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
a

What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e?   I assume we know where
and what Galileo is doing within a few meters.   But without the
HGA,  don't we have to have some pretty good ideas, of where to look
before imaging?  If the HGA was working,  they could slew around
in near real time (Less speed of light delay).  But when they were
imaging toutatis????  didn't someone have to get lucky on a guess to
find the first images?   

Also, I imagine S-L 1993e will be mostly a visual image.  so how will
that affect the other imaging missions.  with the LGA,  there is a real
tight allocation of bandwidth.   It may be premature to hope for answers,
but I thought i'd throw it on the floor.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60219
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Plutonium based Nuclear Power plants.

Todays New York TImes just wrote about a pact being negotiated 
between us and the Russians  to develope  High Temperature
Gas Cooled Fission Reactors using Re-Cycled Weapons Grade plutonium
from Warhead stockpiles.   THe fuel will be pelletized in ceramic
for safety,  and then after depletion will be sufficiently
contaminated with by-products to make extraction of the remaining
plutonium hazardous enough to deter re-use.

Apparently the project will be led by General Atomics of San Diego
with funding from the US GOvernment.  THe pilot plant will be built
and operated by the russians.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60220
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)

In article <VNci2B7w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca>, victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca 
(Victor Laking) writes:
> Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
>  
> All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at 
> drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's 
> orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.

The sightings were apparently spurious.  There is no planet inside of
the orbit of Mercury.

The idea of Vulcan came from the differences between Mercury's observed
perihelion precession and the value it should have had according to
Newtonian physics.  Leverrier made an extensive set of observations
and calculations during the mid 19th century, and Simon Newcombe later
improved on the observations and re-calculated using Leverrier's system
of equations.  Now Leverrier was one of the co-discoverers of Neptune
and since he had predicted its existence based on anomalies in the orbit
of Uranus his inclination was to believe the same sort of thing was
afoot with Mercury.

But alas, 'twere not so.  Mercury's perihelion precesses at the rate
it does because the space where it resides near the sun is significantly
curved due to the sun's mass.  This explanation had to wait until 1915
and Albert Einstein's synthesis of his earlier theory of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies (commonly called Special Relativity) with Reimanian 
geometry.  The result was the General Theory of Relativity, and one of
it's most noteworthy strengths is that it accounts for the precession
of Mercury's perihelion almost exactly.  (Exactly if you use Newcomb's
numbers rather than Leverrier's.)

Of course not everybody believes Einstein, and that's fine.  But subsequent
efforts to find any planets closer to the sun than Mercury using radar
have been fruitless.

-Bill Gawne

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

Any opinions are my own.  Nothing in this post constitutes an official
statement from any person or organization.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60221
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <1993Apr6.125608.7506@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|>>
|>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
|>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
|>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
|>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like
|>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?
|
|I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching
|technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the
|trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of
|separating things first and having a different 'run' for each
|actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull
|(relatively) clean material out the other.  Once the costs,
|technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this
|one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun.  Sure, it's possible
|and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable
|approach? 
|

How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't
do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)

Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology
for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like this.

And does anyone who knows more Particle physics then me,  know if the IPNS
could Prove this technology?

|
|>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
|>built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
|>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
|>technically reasonable.
|

It may also help there is political gridlock on the entire
nuclear technical agenda.  There were big political opponenents to
Fast Breeder Technologies.  WIPP is being fought to death in Courts.
Even if you could make a nuclear incinerator, do you really think
even Deaf SMith County Nevada would accept it?  NIMBY'ism rules
nuclear power concerns.  Only the medical community has been
able to overrule  nuclear  technology opposition. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60222
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

In article <SHAFER.93Apr6094402@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No
>mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were.

Confident, or merely crazed?  That desert sun :-)


>successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
>fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)
>

Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them have a
total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical backup systems?

|
|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
|can't do.
|

What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints?

You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.


pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60223
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: space food sticks

dillon comments that Space Food Sticks may have bad digestive properties.

I don't think so.  I think  most NASA food products were designed to
be low fiber 'zero-residue' products so as to minimize the difficulties
of waste disposal.  I'd doubt they'd deploy anything that caused whole sale
GI distress.  There aren't enough plastic baggies in the world for
a bad case of GI disease.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60224
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: The Area Rule



I am sure  Mary or Henry can describe this more aptly then me.
But here is how i understand it.

At Speed,  Near supersonic.  The wind behaves like a fluid pipe.
It becomes incompressible.  So wind has to bend away from the
wing edges.   AS the wing thickens,  the more the pipes bend.

If they have no place to go,  they begin to stall,  and force
compression, stealing power from the vehicle (High Drag).

If you squeeze the fuselage,  so that these pipes  have aplace to bend
into,  then drag is reduced.   

Essentially,  teh cross sectional area of the aircraft shoulf
remain constant for all areas of the fuselage.  That is where the wings are
subtract, teh cross sectional area of the wings from the fuselage.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60225
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test

In <1993Apr5.191011.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??
>Why do the Martian Landing thing..  Or am I missing something.. Don't know to
>much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).

You missed something.  I think it takes off vertically and is intended
to land the same way.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60226
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!

In <1pq7rj$q2u@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|
>|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately
>|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to
>|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain
>|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk
>|enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they
>|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the
>|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.


>Fred.

>	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year
>contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be
>damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year
>contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much
>as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough
>Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.

I don't have to "try reading a bit", Pat.  I *work* as a government
contractor and know what the rules are like.  Yes, they sign some
(damned few -- which is why everyone is always having to go to
Washington to see about next week's funding) multi-year contracts;
they also aren't willing to include sufficient cancellation penalties
when they *do* decide to cut the multi-year contract and not pay on it
(which can happen arbitrarily at any time, no matter what previous
plans were) to make the risk acceptable of something like putting up a
private space station with the government as the expected prime
occupant.

I'd like a source for that statement about "the reason they aren't
cutting defense spending as much as they would like"; I just don't buy
it. The other thing I find a bit 'funny' about your posting, Pat, is
that several other people answered the question pretty much the same
way I did; mine is the one you comment (and incorrectly, I think) on.
I think that says a lot.  You and Tommy should move in together.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60227
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1psfan$pj0@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
>In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have
>|been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e
>|may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to
>|make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet
>|Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined.
>a
> 
>What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e?   

If Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e is in Jovian orbit, and if the comet
is still hanging around when Galileo arrives, then I'm sure it will
be added to the list of targets.  We'll have by then over two years
of Earth-based observations to help narrow down the positions of the
pieces of the comet. It probably won't be too much different than
what was done with Gaspra.

>But when they were
>imaging toutatis?

Galileo did not image Toutatis.  That came from Earth-based radar.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60228
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
>that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
>Any comments?

Sure.  Why keep using oil?  A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be
cleaner and more efficient in the long run.  The laws of supply and demand
should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of
shortage.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60229
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance

NASA Headquarters distributed the following press
release today (4/6). I've typed it in verbatim, for you
folks to chew over. Many of the topics recently
discussed on sci.space are covered in this.

Gibbons Outlines Space Station Redesign Guidance

Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of
the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space
Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to
the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of
the space station.

A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7
billion and a high option of $9 billion will be
considered by the committee. Each option would cover
the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for
development, operations, utilization, Shuttle
integration, facilities, research operations support,
transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the
available funds.

Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within
the NASA budget for the President's new technology
investment. As a result, station options above $7
billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in
the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space
station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion
in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years.

Gibbons presented the information at an organizational
session of the advisory committee. Generally, the
members-designate focused upon administrative topics
and used the session to get acquainted. They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation
on the process the Station Redesign Team is following
to develop options for the advisory committee to
consider.

Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese, and
Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give
"full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the
course of the space station redesign process.

To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate
in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting
basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their
expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the
possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and
systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to
benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants
in assessing Russian systems and technology. The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop
options for reducing station costs while preserving key
research and exploration capabilities. Careful
integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in
achieving that goal.

Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is
committed to the redesigned space station and to making
every effort to preserve the science, the technology
and the jobs that the space station program represents.
However, he also is committed to a space station that
is well managed and one that does not consume the
national resources which should be used to invest in
the future of this industry and this nation."

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-
West Space Science Center at the University of Maryland
under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60230
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off

On 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

Pat> In article <SHAFER.93Apr6094402@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Pat> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
>fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)
>

Pat> Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them
Pat> have a total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical
Pat> backup systems?

All reaction-controlled aircraft are fly-by-wire, at least the RCS part
is.  On the X-15 the aerodynamic control surfaces (elevator, rudder, etc)
were conventionally controlled (pushrods and cables) but the RCS jets
were fly-by-wire.

|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
|can't do.  

Pat> What do you mean?  Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh
Pat> joints?

Navy aircraft have folding or sweeping wings, in order to save space
on the hangar deck.  The F-14 wings sweep, all the rest fold the
wingtips up at a joint.

Air Force planes don't have folding wings, since the Air Force has
lots of room.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60231
From: dragon@access.digex.com (Covert C Beach)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93

In article <1pcgaa$do1@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
>to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
>justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
>probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
>things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.

I attended a colloquium at Goddard last fall where the head of the 
operations section of NASA was talking about what future missions
were going to be funded.  I don't remember his name or title off hand
and I have discarded the colloquia announcement. In any case, he was 
asked about that very matter: "Why can't we spend a few million more
to keep instruments that we already have in place going?"

His responce was that there are only so many $ available to him and
the lead time on an instrument like a COBE, Magellan, Hubble, etc
is 5-10 years minumum.  If he spent all that could be spent on using
current instruments in the current budget enviroment he would have
very little to nothing for future projects.  If he did that, sure
in the short run the science would be wonderful and he would be popular,
however starting a few years after he had retired he would become
one of the greatest villans ever seen in the space community for not
funding the early stages of the next generation of instruments.  Just
as he had benefited from his predicessor's funding choices, he owed it
to whoever his sucessor would eventually be to keep developing new
missions, even at the expense of cutting off some instruments before
the last drop of possible science has been wrung out of them.


-- 
Covert C Beach
dragon@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60232
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Economics


>If all the ecomomists in the world were laid end to end . . .

>Punchline #1: they would all point in different directions.

>Punchline #2: they wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Punchline #3: it would be a good idea just to leave them there.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60233
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign

"Space Station Redesign Leader Says Cost Goal May Be
Impossible"

Today (4/6) the Washington Post ran an article with the
headline shown above. The article starts with "A leader
of the NASA team in charge of redesigning the planned
space station said yesterday the job is tough and may
be impossible." O'Connor is quoted saying whether it is
possible to cut costs that much and still provide for
meaningful research "is a real question for me."
O'Connor said "everything is fair game," including
"dropping or curtailing existing contracts with the
aerospace industry, chopping management of the space
station program at some NASA facilities around the
country, working closely with the Russian space station
Mir, and using unmanned Titan rockets to supplement the
manned space shuttle fleet."

O'Connor says his team has reviewed 30 design options
so far, and they are sorting the serious candidates
into three categories based on cost.

The Post says O'Connor described the design derived
from the current SSF as a high cost option (I believe
Kathy Sawyer, the Post writer, got confused here. I
listened in on part of O'Connor's briefing to the press
on Monday, and in one part of the briefing O'Connor
talked about how the White House wants three options,
sorted by cost [low, medium, and high]. In another part
of the briefing, he discussed the three teams he has
formed to look at three options [SSF derivative @ LaRC,
modular buildup with Bus-1 @ MSFC, and Single Launch
Core ["wingless Orbiter"] @ JSC. Later, in response to
a reporters question, I thought I heard O'Connor say
the option based on a SSF redesign was a "moderate"
cost option, in between low & high cost options. Not
the "high cost" option as Sawyer wrote).

The article goes on to describe the other two options
as "one features modules that could gradually be fitted
together in orbit, similar to the Russian Mir. The
other is a core facility that could be deposited in
orbit in a single launch, like Skylab. That option
would use existing hardware from the space shuttle -
the fuselage, for example, in its basic structure."

The last sentence in the article contradicts the title
& the first paragraph. The sentence reads "He
[O'Connor] said a streamlined version of the planned
space station Freedom is still possible within the
administration's budget guidelines."


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60234
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named

The following press release was distributed April 1 by
NASA Headquarters.

Space Station Redesign Advisory Members Named

Along with Dr. Charles M. Vest, recently named by Vice President
Albert Gore to head the advisory committee on the redesign of the
Space Station, NASA has announced the names of representatives
from government and industry and academic experts from across the
country to participate in an independent review of the redesign
options being developed by NASA.

"I am extremely honored to have been selected to lead this
important review panel. America's future in science and
technology and as a world leader in space demands our utmost
attention and care," said Vest. "We have assembled a diverse
panel of experts that, I believe, will bring the appropriate
measures of insight, integrity and objectivity to this critical
task."

The advisory committee is charged with independently assessing
various redesign options of the space station presented by NASA's
redesign team, and proposing recommendations to improve
efficiency and effectiveness of the space station program. Space
station international partners also are being asked to 
participate and will be named at a later date. The advisory
committee will submit its recommendations in June.

Advisory committee members named today include:

Dr. Charles Vest              Dr. Bobby Alford
President, MIT                Executive VP & Dean of Medicine
                              Baylor College of Medicine

Mr. Jay Chabrow               Dr. Paul Chu
President, JMR Associates     Director, Texas Center for
                              Superconductivity
                              University of Houston

Dr. Ed Crawley                Dr. John Fabian
Prof of Aero & Astro          President & CEO
MIT                           ANSER

Maj. Gen. James Fain          Dr. Edward Fort
Deputy Chief of Staff for     Chancellor
Requirements; Headquarters    North Carolina AT&T
USAF Materials Command        State University

Dr. Mary Good                 Mr. Frederick Hauck
Senior VP of Technology       President, International Technical
Allied Signal, Inc.           Underwriters

Dr. Lou Lanzerotti            Mr. William Lilly
Chair, Space Sciences         National Academy of Public
Board, National Research      Administration
Council

Mr. Duane McRuer              Dr. Brad Parkinson
President Systems Technology  Prof of Astro & Aero
                              Stanford University

Dr. Robert Seamans            Dr. Lee Silver
Former NASA Deputy Admin.     W.M. Keck Foundation Professor
                              for Resource Geology
                              California Institute of
                              Technology

Dr. Albert "Bud" Wheelon
Retired CEO
Hughes Aircraft


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60235
From: freed@nss.org (Bev Freed)
Subject: FAQs

I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.
 


--  
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: freed@nss.org

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60236
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: FAQs

In article <10505.2BBCB8C3@nss.org>, freed@nss.org (Bev Freed) writes:
>I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly
>.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.

Or just stick 'em on sci.space.news every 28-30 days? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60237
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:

>	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
> that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
> Any comments?

They exist.  Even photosynthetic varieties.  Not economical at this
time, though.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60238
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )

In article <1pfiuh$64e@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better
>technology then we have.  AS opposed to BWR/PWRs  have they really
>considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs.

The Japanese are still on the learning curve as far as nuclear power goes.
This means that unlike the Germans (who do great things all by themselves)
the Japanese tie up with foreign companies. The major one is Mitsubishi
(who else) who have a sharing agreement with GE I think. No chance of a
new design.

>Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design
>difficulties.  Or the inherently safe types.

Sodium has *lots* of chemical problems. Like it eats stainless steel. Very
slowly but it gets there in the end. Not what I call a desired property.
As for design difficulties, what does sodium do there? It is a bitch and
it is only its chemical properties (flwed though they are) that means it
gets used. Two loops? That's not a design problem? Isolation from air and
water? That doesn't cause design problems? In comparison BWR's a dream rides!

>PWR's work real good,  but they need lots of steel,  and they are highly
>complex systems.  Simplicity is a virtue.

Don't get none of that in a Liquid Sodium Breeder! More steel, more complexity.

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60239
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )

In article <1pfj8k$6ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <1993Mar31.161814.11683@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they
>>would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power.

>Of course,  Given they export 50 % of the GNP,  What do they do.

Well they don't export anywhere near 50% of their GNP. Mexico's perhaps
but not their own. They actually export around the 9-10% mark. Similar
to most developed countries actually. Australia exports a larger share
of GNP as does the United States (14% I think off hand. Always likely to
be out by a factor of 12 or more though) This would be immediately obvious
if you thought about it.

>Anything serious enough to disrupt the sea lanes for oil will
>also hose their export routes.

It is their import routes that count. They can do without exports but
they couldn't live without imports for any longer than six months if that.

>Given they import everything,  oil is just one more critical commodity.

Too true! But one that is unstable and hence a source of serious worry.

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60240
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)

In article <1pfkf5$7ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts.
>THey may want to start a galactic empire:-)   Napoleon
>complex you know.  Genghis Khan was a little guy too.  I'd bet
>Julius caesar never broke 5'1".

I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall
for a Roman. He did go on record as favouring small soldiers though.
Thought they were tougher and had more guts. He was probably right
if you think about it. As for Napoleon remember that the French
avergae was just about 5 feet and that height is relative! Did he
really have a complex?

ObSpace :  We have all seen the burning candle from High School that goes
out and relights. If there is a large hot body placed in space but in an
atmosphere, exactly how does it heat the surroundings? Diffusion only?

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60241
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: NASA "Wraps"

In the April edition of "One Small Step for a Space Activist",
Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger write:
  "Another problem is what are called 'wraps' (or sometimes
   the 'center tax'). When work for a large program like
   Freedom or Shuttle is performed at a NASA center, the
   center skims off a portion which goes into what amounts
   to a slush fund. This money is used to fund work the
   center manager wants to fund. This sum is estimated to
   be over a third of the funds allocated. Think about
   that: Of the $30 billion cost of Freedom, fully $10
   billion won't be spent on anything having anything
   to do with Space Stations! Now, maybe that $10 billion
   was wisely spent (and maybe it wasn't), but the work done
   with it should stand on its own merits, not distorting
   the cost of other projects. Congress has no idea of the
   existense of these wraps; Congress has never heard the
   term 'center tax'. They look at the Station they are
   getting and the price they are paying and note that
   it doesn't add up. They wonder this blissfully unaware
   that a third of the money is going for something else."

My dear friends, your mixing fact and fiction here. A couple
of weeks ago, when I first read this in your posting, I
talked with one of the cost experts here in Space Station
at Headquarters [if you wondering why I didn't post a
response immediately, I do have a real job I'm supposed
to be doing here at Headquarters, & digging up old 20 kHz
data & looking into Sherzer/Kyger claims rates pretty low
on the totem pole of priority. Also, I spent last weekend
in Kansas City, at the National Science Teachers 
Association conference, extolling the virtues of SSF
to 15,000 science teachers.]

First off, yes, the concept of 'center tax', or 'wrap' does
exist. If I recall the numbers correctly, the total 'tax'
for the SSF program for this fiscal year is around $40 Million.
This was computed by adding up the WP-1, WP-2, and WP-4
center 'taxes'. With the SSF budget for this fiscal year at
$2.2 Billion, my calculater says the tax percentage is
04/2.2 = 1.8%

Over the life of the SSF program, using your figure of $30
billion for the cost of SSF, a tax at a 1.8% rate comes to
$540 million. This is alot less than $10 billion, but I
will concede it's still an appreciable amount of pocket
change.

I should note that your estimate of the tax rate at 1/3 could
be close to the actual rate. The tax is only charged on funds
that are spent at the center (kind of like McDonalds at some
states, where you do have to pay sales tax if you eat
the food at the restaurant, but you don't if you get it
take-out). For example, at WP-4, the vast bulk of the funds
we receive go to the Rocketdyne Contract, and are *NOT*
subject to the center tax (I don't have the numbers in
front of me, but I'd guess at least 95% of the WP-4 funds
go to Rocketdyne). So, you could be right about a tax
rate of 1/3, but it's only applied to funds spent at the
center, and not to the prime contracts.

This leads to the obvious question "What is the government
doing with SSF funds that don't go to the prime contractors?
(i.e. ok, WP-4 gets a slice of the $30 billion pie. A
big portion of this slice goes to Rocketdyne. What happens
to the balance of the funds, which aren't eaten
up by the center tax?)"

At WP-4, we call these funds we spend in-house supporting
development funds (as they are supporting the development
work done by Rocketdyne). We have used these funds to
setup our own testbed, to checkout the electrical
power system architecture. Our testbed has a real life
solar array field (left over from solar cell research
research a few years back), with lead-acid car batteries
(to simulate the Nickel-Hydrogen batteries on SSF), DC
switchgear, DC-DC converter units, and simulated
loads. Data from the testbed was used in a recent
change evaluation involving concerns about the stability
of the power system.

We have also used the supporting development money to
purchase Nickel Hydrogen batteries, which are on life
testing at both Lewis and the Crane Naval facility in
Indiana. As a side point, 6 of the battery cells on
test recently hit the four year life test milestone.
38 cells have completed 18,552 to 23,405 cycles (the
on-orbit batteries go through 5,840 cycles per year).

As a final example, my 'home' division at Lewis used
the supporting development funds to purchase personal
computers and work stations, for performing system
analyses (like modeling of the performance of the
electrical power system, availability calculations
using a Monte-Carlo simulation, setting up a 
database with information on weight of the power
system elements).

Finally, the money raised by the 'tax' does not all
go into a 'slush fund.' At Lewis, the director
does control a small discretionary fund. Each year,
any individual at Lewis can submit a proposal to
the director to get money from this fund to look
at pretty much anything within the Lewis Charter.

Most of the tax, however, goes to fund the 'general'
services at the Center, like the library, the 
central computer services division, the Contractor 
who removes the snow, etc. Thus, it is rather
difficult to determine what percentage of the
SSF budget doesn't go for SSF activities. To get
an accurate figure, you would have to take
the annual expenditure for the library (for example),
and then divide by the amount of the library funds
used to support SSF (which would be hard to
compute by itself - how would you figure out
what percentage of the bill for Aviation Week for
1 year is 'billable' to SSF, would you base it on
the person-hours SSF employees spend reading AV-week
versus the rest of the center personnel). You would
then have to compare this estimate of the SSF
portion of the library expense with the portion of
the tax that goes to support the library. Who knows,
maybe SSF overpays on the tax to run the library, but
we underpay for snow removal? Talk about
a burecratic nightmare!

My last point is that I can't believe your claim that
Congress has never heard of the term 'center tax.'
Unfortunately, all of the NASA testimony before
Congress isn't on a computer, so I can't do a simple
word search someplace to prove you wrong. But surely,
in some GAO audit somewhere, these NASA cost methods
were documented for Congress?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60242
From: buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke)
Subject: DC-X Rollout Report


McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

        HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- On a picture-perfect Southern
California day, McDonnell Douglas rolled out its DC-X rocket ship last
Saturday.  The company hopes this single-stage rocket technology
demonstrator will be the first step towards a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)
rocket ship.

        The white conical vehicle was scheduled to go to the White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico this week.  Flight tests will start in
mid-June.

        Although there wasn't a cloud in the noonday sky, the forecast for
SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for
a sub-orbital DC-XA, SDIO is passing a tin cup among its sister government
agencies.

        SDIO originally funded SSTO research as a way to cut the costs for
orbital deployments of space-based sensors and weapns.  However, recent
changes in SDI's political marching orders and budget cuts have made SSTO
less of a priority.  Today, the agency is more interested in using DC-X as
a step towards a low-cost, reusable sounding rocket.

        SDIO has already done 50 briefings to other government agencies,
said Col.  Simon "Pete" Worden, SDIO's deputy for technology.  But Worden
declined to say how much the agencies would have to pony up for the
program. "I didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I
have available to spend," he quipped at a press conference at McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics headquarters.

        While SDIO has lowered its sights on the program's orbital
objective, agency officials hail the DC-X as an example of the "better,
faster, cheaper" approach to hardware development.  The agency believes
this philosophy can produce breakthroughs that "leapfrog" ahead of
evolutionary technology developments.

        Worden said the DC-X illustrates how a "build a little, test a
little" approach can produce results on time and within budget.  He said
the program -- which went from concept to hardware in around 18 months --
showed how today's engineers could move beyond the "miracles of our
parents' time."

        "The key is management," Worden said. "SDIO had a very light hand
on this project.  We had only one overworked major, Jess Sponable."

        Although the next phase may involve more agencies, Worden said
lean management and a sense of government-industry partnership will be
crucial. "It's essential we do not end up with a large management
structure where the price goes up exponentially."

        SDIO's approach also won praise from two California members of the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "This is the direction
we're going to have to go," said Rep.  George Brown, the committee's
Democratic chairman. "Programs that stretch aout 10 to 15 years aren't
sustainable....NASA hasn't learned it yet.  SDIO has."

        Rep.  Dana Rohrbacher, Brown's Republican colleague, went further.
Joking that "a shrimp is a fish designed by a NASA design team,"
Rohrbacher doubted that the program ever would have been completed if it
were left to the civil space agency.

        Rohrbacher, whose Orange County district includes McDonnell
Douglas, also criticized NASA-Air Force work on conventional, multi-staged
rockets as placing new casings around old missile technology. "Let's not
build fancy ammunition with capsules on top.  Let's build a spaceship!"

         Although Rohrbacher praised SDIO's sponsorship, he said the
private sector needs to take the lead in developing SSTO technology.

        McDonnell Douglas, which faces very uncertain prospects with its
C-17 transport and Space Station Freedom programs, were more cautious
about a large private secotro commitment. "On very large ventures,
companies put in seed money," said Charles Ordahl, McDonnell Douglas'
senior vice president for space systems. "You need strong government
investments."

        While the government and industry continue to differ on funding
for the DC-XA, they agree on continuing an incremental approach to
development.  Citing corporate history, they liken the process to Douglas
Aircraft's DC aircraft.  Just as two earlier aircraft paved the way for
the DC-3 transport, a gradual evolution in single-stage rocketry could
eventually lead to an orbital Delta Clipper (DC-1).

        Flight tests this summer at White Sands will "expand the envelope"
of performance, with successive tests increasing speed and altitude.  The
first tests will reach 600 feet and demonstrate hovering, verticle
take-off and landing.  The second series will send the unmanned DC-X up to
5,000 feet.  The third and final series will take the craft up to 20,000
feet.

        Maneuvers will become more complex on third phase.  The final
tests will include a "pitch-over" manever that rotates the vehicle back
into a bottom-down configuration for a soft, four-legged landing.

        The flight test series will be supervised by Charles "Pete"
Conrad, who performed similar maneuvers on the Apollo 12 moon landing.
Now a McDonnell Douglas vice president, Conrad paised the vehicles
aircraft-like approach to operations.  Features include automated
check-out and access panels for easy maintainance.

        If the program moves to the next stage, engine technology will
become a key consideration.  This engine would have more thrust than the
Pratt & Whitney RL10A-5 engines used on the DC-X.  Each motor uses liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants to generate up to 14,760 pounds of
thrust

        Based on the engine used in Centaur upper stages, the A-5 model
has a thrust champer designed for sea level operation and three-to-on
throttling capability.  It also is designed for repeat firings and rapid
turnaround.

        Worden said future single-stage rockets could employ
tri-propellant engine technology developed in the former Soviet Union.
The resulting engines could burn a dense hydrocarbon fuel at takeoff and
then switch to liquid hydrogen at higher altitudes.

        The mechanism for the teaming may already be in place.  Pratt has
a technology agreement with NPO Energomash, the design bureau responsible
for the tri-propellant and Energia cryogenic engines.



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60243
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Space Research Spin Off


In article <1psgs1$so4@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>|
>|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
>|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
>|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
>|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
>|can't do.
>|
>
>What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints?
>
>You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.

No, they fold on the dotted line.  Look at pictures of carriers with loads of
a/c on the deck, wings all neatly folded.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60244
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste

In <1psg95$ree@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

[On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...]

>How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't
>do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)

>Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology
>for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like
>this.

I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than
everyone else, Pat.  Just a *few* corrections:

1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable
to GO LOOK AT.

2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of
the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply
doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to
become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility
(sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a
down-side that was too expensive to overcome).

I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault
density for even you, Pat.



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60245
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: pushing the envelope


> flight tests are generally carefully coreographed and just what 
> is going to be  'pushed' and how
> far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans,
> such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed
> taxi tests).

.. and Chuck Yeager earlier flights with the X-1...


 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60246
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Commercial point of view

Original to: szabo@techbook.com
G'day szabo@techbook.com

29 Mar 93 07:28, szabo@techbook.com wrote to All:

 sc> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 sc> Here are some longer-term markets to consider:

Here are some more:

* Terrestrial illumination from orbiting mirrors.

* World enviroment and disaster monitering system. (the Japanese have
already developed a plan for this, called WEDOS) Although this may be more
of a "public good".

* Space tourism.

* Energy relay satellites

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-6797  3:713/6
(3:713/635)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60247
From: bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs)
Subject: Re: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.

In article <1993Apr5.184527.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..
>
>
>Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
>confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
>earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??
>
Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above:
 

1.  Politics
2.  Traditions
3.  Congress
4.  Beauracrats


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60248
From: buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke)
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

To: spacenews@austen.rand.org, cti@austen.rand.org
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT
From: Richard Buenneke <buenneke@austen.rand.org>

4/06/93:  GIBBONS OUTLINES SPACE STATION REDESIGN GUIDANCE

NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
April 6, 1993

RELEASE:  93-64

        Dr.  John H.  Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the
Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance
to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space
station.

        A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a
high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee.  Each
option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development,
operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research
operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds.

        Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA
budget for the President's new technology investment.  As a result,
station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting
reductions in the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space station
option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA
budget over the next 5 years.

        Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of
the advisory committee.  Generally, the members-designate focused upon
administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted.  They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the
Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory
committee to consider.

        Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians -- have
decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of
Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process.

        To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the
redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign
team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR
and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems.
The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of
the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology.  The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing
station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilitiaes.
Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving
that goal.

        Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the
redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the
science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program
represents.  However, he also is committed to a space station that is well
managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should
be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation."

        NASA Administrator Daniel S.  Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-West Space Science
Center at the University of Maryland under the leadership of Roald
Sagdeev.

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60249
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Sr-71 in propoganda films?

In article <1993Apr5.220610.1532@sequent.com>, bigfoot@sequent.com (Gregory Smith) writes:
|> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> 
|> >In <1phv98$jbk@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >>THe SR-71 stopped being a real secret by the mid 70's.
|> >>I had a friend in high school who had a poster with it's picture.
|> 
|> >It was known well before that.  I built a model of it sometime in the
|> >mid 60's, billed as YF-12A/SR-71.  The model was based on YF-12A specs
|> >and had a big radar in the nose and 8 AAMs in closed bays on the
|> >underside of the fuselage.  The description, even then, read "speeds
|> >in excess of Mach 3 at altitudes exceeding 80,000 feet."
|> 
|> L.B.J. publically announced the existance of the Blackbird program
|> in 1964.


He's also the one who dubbed it the SR-71 - it was the RS-71 until LBJ
mippselled (sic) it.

FWIW,

Doug Page

***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and don't necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60250
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5

In article <C50orq.7G0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gwg33762@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Garret W. Gengler) writes...
>In sci.space you write:
> 
>>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or 
>>128.183.104.16, or call (310)286-5690.  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan, 
>>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments.
> 
>Howdy.  Thanks for the info.
> 
>I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work.
>I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login
>and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for
>environet was "envnet".  
> 
>Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try?
> 
>Thanks,
>Garret
> 
> 
The home office number for ENVIRONET is (301) 286-5690 (note area
code change).  A friend of mine used to use it to get LDEF data, but
he had to apply for a login name and password.  I have a call in for
more info, which I hope to get in the morning.

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60251
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Quaint US Archaisms

In article <C512wC.B0M.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.170157.24251@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> 
<stuff deleted>
|> Of course the units of force have the same names as those of weight,
|> but in order to use them you need to keep useful constants like the
|> omnipresent 32.???? ft/sec^2 around.
|> 
|> Maybe you'd like to go over again how this system is _so_ natural and
|> _so_ easy to use, Gary? While you're at it, you can figure out for us
|> the weight of 17 barrels and a quart of foo (density 17lb 2 3/4 oz per
|> cubic foot) on the moon (gravity 5 ft 7 3/32 in/sec^2). Let's face it,
|> even the imperial system uses a basically metric way of relating
|> quantities (i.e. that would be written as 5.59 ft/sec^2); the only
|> thing you're hanging on to is the right to express the same quantity
|> as 1731 inches, 144.25 feet, 48.0833 yards or 2.186 chains. What
|> everyone else is saying is _why_ do you want to do that?
|> 
|> Any apparent remaining complexity in the SI system is due to the
|> multiplicity of the aforesaid prefixes. In fact what's going on (and
|> the fundamental difference between SI and imperial) is that you have
|> exactly one unit of each type, and all values of that type are
|> expressed as some multiple of the unit.

You mean like: seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years. . .  :-)

Remember,  the Fahrenheit temperature scale is also a centigrade scale.  Some
revisionists tell the history something like this:  The coldest point in a
particular Russian winter was marked on the thermometer as was the body
temperature of a volunteer (turns out he was sick, but you can't win 'em all).
Then the space in between the marks on the thermometer was then divided into
hundredths.
								:-)

FWIW,

Doug Page


***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer (or any other sane person, fot that matter).            ***

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60252
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Fred and Tom, ad naseum

>>Nick sez;
I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   [...]

>>Fred replies;
Translation:  It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
to Which You MUST Subscribe...

>Tom sez;
Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
degree.  If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.

>Fred again;
You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you?
  [not incredibly clear explanation of complaints...something between
   feelings regarding Nick's method, and judgments about his meaning]

T
>>Maybe I'd get it if you said what the complaints are about, rather than
>>doing the same things that you mean to complain about.  When you trash
>>people, how am I supposed to read that as 'trashing people is bad'?

F
>Gee, funny that you get it now, then?  Deliberate obtuseness, perhaps?

*** Fred's issue #1;  Nick's alleged trashing of others ***

I only got it when you stopped trashing, and made your point patently,
instead of 'allegorically'.  That was my point all along, Fred.

>>>>Not only
>>>>do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas
>>>>on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just
>>>>baiting, not even part of a debate.

>>>I have yet to see Nick enter into anything remotely resembling "a
>>>debate".  I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The
>>>One True Szabo Plan; I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy
>>>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight
>>>Nick; I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the
>>>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo.  But debate?  BWAAaaahhhaaaa.

>>I'm glad you can laugh, since your ratio of debate/insult is about the same.

>Not even close, Tommy, and generally only when I'm dealing with
>someone like Nick.

I see we are dealing with a problem in a conflict of interpretations, not
least of which is your belief that only you can adequately judge what is
and is not debate.  Suffice to say that I disagree with you on that last
point.  Why don't you take a poll, Fred, if you want some psuedo-objective
point-of-view?

And, as usual, you defend your insults with "he started it."  "Yeah, I
took some of his research and called it my own, but he started it."  "So
what if I stole his car, he stole my lawnmower first."  Besides that, I
think it's still open to interpretation whether Nick actually did start it.
So your defense, besides being lame, and contradicting the first part of
the sentence in which it occurs, may not even apply anyway.

Your defense reminds me of the guy that broke the borrowed tool:  "I
never borrowed it, I already gave it back, and it was broken when you
gave it to me."  Make up yer mind, Fred!

>>>>I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space-
>>>>based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the
>>>>reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of
>>>>the person with a divergent opinion.

>>>Who said I think they should be, Tommy?  Show me a note where I said
>>>that and I'll eat this terminal.    ****See below, Fred****

>>Fred, I cocluded that you did, since you took issue with it.  The fact
>>that my conclusion was incorrect, i.e. that you were taking issue with
>>something different, is evidence that your communication style is
>>confusing.

>Or evidence that your reading and comprehension style are inadequate.

First, I try to address what I think you meant, for which I am rewarded
with a denial of sorts, and a smart remark.  Then, I point out that I am
not clear what you did mean, rather than risking your childish ire, wrongly
interpreting you a second time, and I'm stupid for it.  I just can't win,
can I, Fred?  You've got a great point here somewhere, it's just that
between stupid people that you must insult, and your jealous guarding of
your valuable opinions, you never actually get around to making it.

>Please quote the 'it' I took issue with.  I believe you will see (if
>you look) that what I was and am taking issue with is Mr Szabo's idea
>that the manned program should be scrapped until such time as his
>toaster-based infrastructure is finished.  All Hail the Szabo Plan!

*** Fred issue #2;  Nick's alleged meaning ***

Too bad the plan only exists in your mind, instead of Nick's, or you
would have a really good point.  Instead you have provided a good reason
to ignore your insults, since they are based on incorrect interpretations
that you have made about others.  Forgive me for giving your insults more
meaning than they ever should have had.

My reading of what Nick actually said is that "people aren't required in
all parts of all space processes", so your taking issue with his opinions
regarding people in the space program, I read as "People are required in
all parts of all space processes."  So, help me out, here, Fred, since I'm
so patently stupid.  Did you read Nick wrong?  Or are you going to eat
your terminal now?  If the latter, I sure hope it's one of those Cheeto and
string models that all the computer mags have been raving about :-)

The point is, _I_ am not stupid because of _your_ incorrect assumption.  I'd
only be stupid if I insulted you for having made it.  But, alas, that's your
job, Fred.

And, finally, your style is confusing, since you tried to make two points,
simultaneously, with an allegory/insult.  Sadly, one point addressed a 'plan'
that only existed in your mind, and the other took issue with behaviors that
you do as much as anyone.

>More deliberate lack of understanding, Tommy?

No, no, I finally got it.  You don't like the plan that Nick's posts made
you imagine.  And you don't like Nick's obnoxious behavior, even though
it's no worse than your own.  Thanks for taking the time with someone as
dense as myself.

>>>>If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that.  The way you
>>>>bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of.

>>>No, Tommy, the 'bait' is that which elicits the response.  *NICK*
>>>'baits'; I just flame him for being an obnoxious fool.

>>I don't really care who started it.  I read this list to get information
>>and other's views on the issues to which it was dedicated, not to be
>>your Mom (He started it!  No, he did!) or to hear about why Nick is a very
>>bad guy.  If you think flaming is bad, stop flaming, or at least get to
>>the point in the first post, instead of explaining yourself all the time.

>That's nice, Tommy.  When you pay me to post to the net you can
>complain about not getting your money's worth.  Perhaps if you weren't
>(deliberately?) too thick to get the point the first time I wouldn't
>have to waste time "explaining [myself] all the time"?

Of course, Socrates.  How could it be otherwise?

>I think it's neat how all this criticism from you started after your
>'fatherly' admonitions to me about how such things should be handled
>outside Usenet were somewhat rebuffed.  Being a little hypocritical,
>Tommy (to go with the immaturity)?  Or is this just the pique of a
>net.ghod wannabe who got turned down by someone he *thought* was new
>(and hence could be 'instructed' -- Tommy, I saw you come on the net).

Who cares who came on the net first?  If you do, consider that you saw
me come on after a brief haitus, before which I was on for about 2 years.
If you had seen me on the net first, you'd remember when Nick and I went
down exactly the same road regarding rude, unneccesary behavior.  It's
just amazing to me that you continue to take issue with behavior that's
no worse than your own.

Let's see here, my complaints about your obnoxious behavior are hypocritical,
while your flames against people you decide are flamers isn't, and my
complaints about your name-calling are immature, while your name-calling
isn't.  Yeah, right.  Maybe if you called me some more names, I might
see it better, Fred.

"Net.ghod wannabe"?  Naturally, Fred, you've correctly interpreted my
motivations, when yours are impossible to judge from your actions (as
your insulting of people that try, proves).  I didn't really care about
people that fill the net with personal garbage, what I really wanted was to
impress everyone.  I only put my complaints with your behavior on private
mail, not because it belongs there, but because I thought you were such a
jerk that you'd bring it back to the Net, playing right into my hands.
Alas, I had no idea what an intellectual master you were, turning tables and
bringing the history of these posts to the net, for the noble and valuable
purpose of embarassing me.  Whether I should feel stupid because I tried
to make suggestions to such a superior intellect, or becuase I tried to
communicate like an adult with a self-righteous ass, still isn't clear.

Well, Fred, you exposed me.  Now I'll never be able to get a(nother) job
with NASA, since they all know that I'm stupider than Fred McCall.  Well,
I just hope you're happy.  Please leave me alone, now.  I just don't
have the heart to attempt keeping up with one so far above me.  Maybe Nick
or Pat can approach your high standards, but I'm dropping it now.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60253
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: DC-X Rollout Report

In article <C532v3.Ftn.1@cs.cmu.edu> buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke) writes:

   McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

 ...


   SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
   million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
   follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for

This is a little peculiar way of putting it, SDIO's budget this year
was, what, $3-4 billion? They _could_ fund all of the DC development
out of one years budget - of course they do have other irons in the
fire ;-) and launcher development is not their primary purpose, but
the DC development could as easily be paid for by diverting that money
as by diverting the comparable STS ops budget...

- oh, and before the flames start. I applaud the SDIO for funding DC-X
devlopment and I hope it works, and, no, launcher development is not
NASAs primary goal either, IMHO they are supposed to provide the
enabling technology research for others to do launcher development,
and secondarily operate such launchers as they require - but that's
just me.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60770
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus

> Another legend with the name Vulcan was the planet, much like Earth,
> in the same orbit

There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its 
name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the 
Sun so it could never be visible from Earth. Turns out that that planet 
was the exact mirror image of Earth and all its inhabitants looked like 
the Earthings with the difference that their organs was in the opposite 
side like the heart was in the right side instead in the left and they 
would shake hands with the left hand and so on...

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60771
From: tuinstra@signal.ece.clarkson.edu.soe (Dwight Tuinstra)
Subject: Re: Clementine name

In article F00001@permanet.org, Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>Please go just one step further:
>How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?
>

Could be the (folk?) song "Clementine".  If memory serves, part of it goes:

   In a cavern, by a canyon,
   Excavating for a mine,
   Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
   and his daughter, Clementine.

Anyone who watched Huckleberry Hound can sing you the chorus :-) 
Is there a story/real person behind the song?

+========================================================================+
|  dwight tuinstra             best:  tuinstra@sandman.ece.clarkson.edu  |
|                         tolerable:  tuinstrd@craft.camp.clarkson.edu   |
|                                                                        |
|        "Homo sapiens: planetary cancer??  ...  News at six"            |
+========================================================================+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60772
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Some Recent Observations by Hubble

Here are some recent observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope:

     o The Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) was used to make ultraviolet
       observations of both the planet Pluto, and its moon Charon. The
       peakups were successful. The observations were executed as
       scheduled, and no problems were reported.

     o Observations were made using the High Speed Photometer of the Planet
       Uranus during an occultation by a faint star in Capricornus. These
       observations will help in our understanding of the planet's
       atmospheric radiative and dynamical processes. This event occurred
       close to the last quarter moon, and special arrangements had to be
       made to modify the lunar limit tests to allow these observations.
       The observations are currently being reviewed, and all the
       observations looked okay.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60773
From: almo@packmind.EBay.Sun.COM (Alan Monday-WWCS Business Mgt. Group)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

Hey!? What happened to the solar sail race that was supposed to be
for Columbus+500?

In article 29848@news.duc.auburn.edu, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
>
>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
> Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject
> back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information.
>
>Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?





Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60774
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ozone GIFs Available

                         ==========================
                               OZONE GIF IMAGES
                                April 15, 1993
                         ==========================

     Two GIF images of the ozone maps over the northern and southern
hemispheres are now available at the JPL Info public access site.  These maps
were produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder aboard the Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite (UARS), and are courtesy of the Public Information Office
at JPL.  Note that the images are in GIF89a format, so make sure your display
software supports this format (as opposed to the older GIF87a format).  The
caption files accompanying the images are appended at the end of this message,
as well as being embedded in the images.  The images are available by dialup
modem at +1 (818) 354-1333, up to 9600 bps, parameters N-8-1, or by using
anonymous ftp to:

        ftp:      pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       news (will be moved to the images directory in 30 days)
        files:    ozone93a.gif - Northern hemisphere
                  ozone93b.gif - Southern hemisphere

     Also, photographic prints of these images can be ordered from Newell Color
Lab listed below.  Refer to the P number associated with the images when
ordering.

     Newell Color Lab
     221 N. Westmoreland Avenue
     Los Angeles CA 90064
     Telephone: (213) 380-2980
     FAX: (213) 739-6984

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ozone93a.gif

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

PHOTO                                                     P-42210
                                                   April 14, 1993

This graphic depicts chlorine monoxide and ozone over Earth's
northern hemisphere in February 1992 and 1993.  These maps were
produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder aboard the Upper
Atmosphere Research Satellite.  The chlorine monoxide (ClO) maps
(left) are for a layer about 20 kilometers (66,000 feet) above
the Earth's surface on February 17, 1992 (above) and 1993
(below).  The ozone maps show the total amount above an altitude
of about 12 kilometers (41,000 feet) averaged over the period
from February 15 to March 6 for the two years.  The Microwave
Limb Sounder, developed and operated by a team at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, is one of several instruments on the
Goddard Space Flight Center's Upper Atmosphere Research
Satellite, launched in September 1991.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ozone93b.gif

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

PHOTO CAPTION                                             P-42211
                                                   April 14, 1993

This graphic depicts chlorine monoxide (ClO) and the Antarctic
ozone hole.  These maps, produced by the Microwave Limb Sounder
aboard the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, show the amount
of chlorine monoxide (left) and ozone (right) in the stratosphere
at altitudes above 20 kilometers (66,000 feet).  Very small
abundances of ozone appear where there are large abundances of
chlorine monoxide, the dominant form of chlorine that destroys
ozone.  Data from September 21, 1991 (top) are compared with
those from September 20, 1992 (bottom).  The Microwave Limb
Sounder, developed and operated by a team at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, is one of several instruments on Goddard
Space Flight Center's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
launched September 12, 1991.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60775
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)

In article <1993Apr15.072429.10206@sol.UVic.CA>, rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:
> In article <734850108.F00002@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>>
>>One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
>>many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
>>these individuals?
>>
> 	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:
> 
> 			"Hey, I read sci.space!"
> 
> Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
> (This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
> the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")

A practical suggestion, to be sure, but one could *also* peek into
news.lists, where Brian Reid has posted "USENET Readership report for
Mar 93." Another posting called "USENET READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR
MAR 93" gives the methodology and caveats of Reid's survey.  (These
postings failed to appear for a while-- I wonder why?-- but they are
now back.)

Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers...
Sorry, Mark.

I suspect Mark, dangling out there on Fidonet, may not get news.lists
so I've mailed him copies of these reports.

The bottom line?

        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
        |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
        |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
        |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
        V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V
  88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space 

The first figure indicates that sci.space ranks 88th among most-read
newsgroups.

I've been keeping track sporadically to watch the growth of traffic
and readership.  You might be entertained to see this.

Oct 91   55  71000  1387   84%   718  1865.2    21%  0.04   4.2%  sci.space
Mar 92   43  85000  1741   82%  1207  2727.2    13%  0.06   4.1%  sci.space
Jul 92   48  94000  1550   80%  1044  2448.3    12%  0.04   3.8%  sci.space
May 92   45  94000  2023   82%   834  1744.8    13%  0.04   4.1%  sci.space
(some kind of glitch in estimating number of readers happens here)
Sep 92   45  51000  1690   80%  1420  3541.2    16%  0.11   3.6%  sci.space 
Nov 92   78  47000  1372   81%  1220  2633.2    17%  0.08   2.8%  sci.space 
(revision in ranking groups happens here(?))
Mar 93   88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space 

Possibly old Usenet hands could give me some more background on how to
interpret these figures, glitches, or the history of Reid's reporting
effort.  Take it to e-mail-- it doesn't belong in sci.space.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | In a churchyard in the valley
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Where the myrtle doth entwine
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | There grow roses and other posies
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Fertilized by Clementine.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60777
From: Chris W. Johnson <chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: New DC-x gif

In article <Cohen-150493082611@q5022531.mdc.com> Andy Cohen,
Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com writes:
> I just uploaded "DCXart2.GIF" to bongo.cc.utexas.edu...after Chris Johnson
> moves it, it'll probably be in pub/delta-clipper.

Thanks again Andy.

The image is in pub/delta-clipper now. The name has been changed to 
"dcx-artists-concept.gif" in the spirit of verboseness. :-)

----Chris

Chris W. Johnson

Internet:   chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu
AppleLink:  chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu@internet#

...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60778
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>
>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.

Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING
LOT of the K-MART!

				UNLIMITED INSEMINATION OF THIS MESSAGE
					RIGIDLY REFUSED



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60779
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus)

In article <1993Apr15.170048.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
>States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K... Later, they went
>on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.
>
>The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
>airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
>look at.

They recycled a lot of models and theme music for UFO.  Some of the
concepts even showed up in SPACE: 1999. 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60780
From: ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat)
Subject: Shuttle Launch Question

There has been something bothering me while watching
NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
inquiring minds just gotta know............

Yeah, yeah, I know, its those dumb cosmospheres again!
=============================================================
Randy Padgett, Supervisor      BITNET   : ETRAT@TTACS        
Academic Computing Facilities  Internet : ETRAT@TTACS.TTU.EDU 
Texas Tech University          THEnet   : TTACS::ETRAT        
Lubbock, TX 79409-42042  (806) 742-3653   FAX (806) 742-1755

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60781
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr15.051309.22252@stortek.com>, pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey (higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov) wrote:
> : While you're at it, comet experts, explain how a comet gets into
> : Jovian orbit to begin with!
> 
> : There are non-gravitational forces from heating and outgassing when a
> : comet gets into the inner solar system.  [...]
> 
> Don't forget the Galilean satellites of Jupiter.  
 
 My poor old physics intuition will be very surprised if these tiny
 masses, sitting very close to Jupiter, play any role whatsoever in the
 problem.   Or, to put it more technically, the extra "volume" they add
 to the phase space of possible capture trajectories is negligible.
 
 Jupiter is 2E27 kg, while the Galilean satellites are around 1E23.
 
 Also, as I said, the few references that I've looked at do not
 mention outgassing or breakup as important processes.  The important
 thing is a Jupiter-Sun-comet "reverse slingshot" that leads to a
 weakly Jupiter-bound orbit for the comet (at least a temporary one).
 
 Bill Higgins                       | Late at night she still doth haunt me
 Fermilab                           | Dressed in garments soaked in brine
 Bitnet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | Though in life I used to hug her
 Internet:   HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Now she's dead, I draw the line!
 SPAN/Hepnet:       43011::HIGGINS  |  --after the tragedy, "Clementine"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60782
From: jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch)
Subject: A WRENCH in the works?


Hi all,

I really thought that by now I would have seen something
about this, but I haven't, so here goes:  Last night on
the evening news, the anchorperson said something to the
effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.  There
was no elaboration as to where specfically the item was
found, of what type of wrench it was, but the anchorperson
did say something about a NASA official commenting that
there would be an inquiry into how the thing got in the SSRB.

Has anybody else on the net whose info sources may be 
better than mine heard anything about this?  It seems rather
weird.

Mitch ---------------------------->jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60783
From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
Subject: Re: Some Recent Observations by Hubble

In article <15APR199316461058@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>Here are some recent observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope:
>
>     o Observations were made using the High Speed Photometer of the Planet
>       Uranus during an occultation by a faint star in Capricornus.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow! I knew Uranus is a long way off, but I didn't think it was THAT far away!

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60784
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/15/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                             POST-LAUNCH
                         April 9 - 15, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 9, real-time commands were sent, as planned, to reacquire
celestial reference after completion of the Low Gain Antenna (LGA-2)
swing/Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) hammer activities.

2.  On April 9, the EJ-1 (Earth-Jupiter #1) sequence memory load was uplinked
to the spacecraft without incident.  This sequence covers spacecraft activity
from April 12, 1993 to June 14, 1993 and includes a window for the Radio Relay
Antenna (RRA) slew test on April 28, 1993.  The command loss timer was set to
11 days as a part of this sequence memory load.

3.  On April 12 and 15, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss
timer to 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

4.  On April 12, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

5.  On April 12, an Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to verify
the health status of the USO and to collect gravitational red shift experiment
data; long term trend analysis is continuing.

6.  On April 14, a 40bps modulation index test was performed to determine the
optimal Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) when transmitting at 40bps.  Preliminary
analysis of the data suggests that the present pre-launch selected modulation
index is near the optimal level.

7.  On April 15, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV) and Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.
Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received properly.

8.  On April 15, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster
flushing maintenance activity was performed; all 12 thrusters were flushed
during the activity.  Thruster performance throughout the activity was nominal.

9.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant
changes (greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads
19 DN (4.3 volts).  The DC measurement reads 111 DN (12.9 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

10. The Spacecraft status as of April 15, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  60 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 18 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 6 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 260 hours


GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  Galileo participated in a second DSN (Deep Space Network) acceptance test
for the DSN Telemetry Phase 3 Upgrade on April 13, 1993, using CTA-21
(Compatibility Test Area 21).  The purpose of this test was to verify
the flow of Galileo telemetry data through the new Telemetry Group Controller
(TGC) and the Telemetry Channel Assembly (TCA).  The TGC/TCA is the replacement
for the current Telemetry Processing Assembly (TPA).  Seven different telemetry
rates were run for this test; all ran well on both the MTS (MCCC Telemetry
Subsystem) and the AMMOS MGDS V18.0 GIF with the exception of 10bps.  The
10bps rate had some trouble staying in lock; it appears the TGC/TCA was
not metering the data correctly.  Further comparisons between the MGDS and MTS
data from this test are being conducted. MVT (Mission Verification Test) of
the TGC/TCA system is expected to begin May 16, 1993.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 15, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         152,606,000 km (1.02 AU)
	Distance from Sun           277,519,800 km (1.86 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          93,400 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       543,973,900 km
	Round Trip Light Time       17 minutes, 4 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 15, 1993, a total of 70184 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65076  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5108 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 7 real time commands were transmitted: 6 were initiated in
the sequence design process and one initiated in the real time command process.
Major command activities included commands to reacquire celestial reference,
uplink the EJ-1 sequence memory load, and reset the command loss timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60785
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Successful Balloon Flight Measures Ozone Layer

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011

Contact:  Mary A. Hardin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                              April 15, 1993
#1506

     Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory report the
successful flight of a balloon carrying instruments designed to
measure and study chemicals in the Earth's ozone layer.

     The April 3 flight from California's Barstow/Daggett Airport
reached an altitude of 37 kilometers (121,000 feet) and took
measurements as part of a program established to correlate data
with the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).  

     The data from the balloon flight will also be compared to
readings from the Atmospheric Trace Molecular Spectroscopy
(ATMOS) experiment which is currently flying onboard the shuttle
Discovery.

     "We launch these balloons several times a year as part of an
ongoing ozone research program.  In fact, JPL is actively
involved in the study of ozone and the atmosphere in three
important ways," said Dr. Jim Margitan, principal investigator on
the balloon research campaign.  

     "There are two JPL instruments on the UARS satellite," he
continued.  "The ATMOS experiment is conducted by JPL scientists,
and the JPL balloon research provides collaborative ground truth
for those activities, as well as data that is useful in its own
right."

     The measurements taken by the balloon payload will add more
pieces to the complex puzzle of the atmosphere, specifically the
mid-latitude stratosphere during winter and spring. 
Understanding the chemistry occurring in this region helps
scientists construct more accurate computer models which are
instrumental in predicting future ozone conditions.

     The scientific balloon payload consisted of three JPL
instruments:  an ultraviolet ozone photometer which measures
ozone as the balloon ascends and descends through the atmosphere;
a submillimeterwave limb sounder which looks at microwave
radiation emitted by molecules in the atmosphere; and a Fourier
transform infrared interferometer which monitors how the
atmosphere absorbs sunlight. 

     Launch occurred at about noontime, and following a three-
hour ascent, the balloon floated eastward at approximately 130
kilometers per hour (70 knots).  Data was radioed to ground
stations and recorded onboard.  The flight ended at 10 p.m.
Pacific time in eastern New Mexico when the payload was commanded
to separate from the balloon.

     "We needed to fly through sunset to make the infrared
measurements," Margitan explained, "and we also needed to fly in
darkness to watch how quickly some of the molecules disappear."

     It will be several weeks before scientists will have the
completed results of their experiments.  They will then forward
their data to the UARS central data facility at the Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland for use by the UARS
scientists.    

     The balloon was launched by the National Scientific Balloon
Facility, normally based in Palestine, Tex., operating under a
contract from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility.  The balloon was
launched in California because of the west-to-east wind direction
and the desire to keep the operation in the southwest.

     The balloons are made of 20-micron (0.8 mil, or less than
one-thousandth of an inch) thick plastic, and are 790,000 cubic
meters (28 million cubic feet) in volume when fully inflated with
helium (120 meters (400 feet) in diameter).  The balloons weigh
between 1,300 and 1,800 kilograms (3,000 and 4,000 pounds).  The
scientific payload weighs about 1,300 kilograms (3,000) pounds
and is 1.8 meters (six feet) square by 4.6 meters (15 feet) high.

     The JPL balloon research is sponsored by NASA's Upper
Atmosphere Research Program and the UARS Correlative Measurements
Program.                        

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60786
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Russian Operation of US Space Missions.

I know people hate it when someone says somethings like "there was an article 
about that somewhere a while ago" but I'm going to say it anyway.  I read an
article on this subject, almost certainly in Space News, and something like
six months ago.  If anyone is really interested in the subject I can probably
hunt it down given enough motivation.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
            	     seront capable de le realiser"
			 -Jules Verne

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60787
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?


There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60788
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan? No, not Spock or Haphaestus)

In article <1qju0bINN10l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
> There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its 
> name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the 
> Sun so it could never be visible from Earth. 

This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K.  It was produced by the great
team of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (whose science was usually a bit
better than this).  It may have been their first production using live
actors-- they were better known for their technophilic puppet shows,
such as *Supercar*, *Stingray*, and *Thunderbirds*.  Later, they went
on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.

The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
look at.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | In a churchyard in the valley
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Where the myrtle doth entwine
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | There grow roses and other posies
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Fertilized by Clementine.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60789
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <15APR199315012030@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.094320.1723@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes...
>>> > So how close would the comet have gotten to Jupiter on the pass that
>>> > put it into temporary orbit, and how far is it likely to get from
>>> > Jupiter before it makes its escape?
>>> 
>>> The answer to all of these questions is we don't know yet.
>>> We don't know for sure if the comet is in a temporary orbit.
>> 
>>I see.  I wasn't so interested in this particular case as in typical
>>behavior, anyway.  Can these questions be answered for a previous
>>instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?
> 
> Gehrels 3 was in a temporary Jovian orbit for about 3 or 4 years.  I'll
> get the orbital elements from Dance of the Planets and post them here.

Sorry folks, I should have done this, and meant to just after i hit the 
send key...

Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)

p(au)          3.424346
e              0.151899
i              1.0988
cap_omega(0) 243.5652
W(0)         231.1607
epoch       1977.04110

Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:

April  1973     83 jupiter radii
August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

Hope this helps...I'm even less of an orbital mechanic than I am an artist.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60790
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56     
1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.06179397  .00044513  00000-0  12649-3 0   230
2 22621  57.0022 147.2850 0004246 288.7332  38.0941 15.92991629  1084
1993 023B  
1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86
2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60791
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <1993Apr14.231654.14060@stsci.edu> rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>This question is probably mostly for Allen Sherzer, but anyone who KNOWS
>would be welcome to answer.  I was just wondering if we could have some kind
>of update on DC-X.

Well it rolled out two weeks ago. As we speak it is at White Sands getting
ready. I would have called my sources for the latest but they are all out
of town (in NM).

As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work
on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have
some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital
prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for
another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with
major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a
set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.

Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of
this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next
year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.

Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made
for spending half on DC.

Public support is STILL critical. Meet with your Congressperson (I'll
help you do it) and get his/her support. Also call your local media
ans get them to cover the flight tests.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------62 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60792
From: aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Subject: NASP



Could someone please send me the basics of the NASP project:
1. The proposal/objectives
2. The current status of the project/obstacles encountered
3. Chance that the project shall ever be completed
or any other interesting information about this project.

Any help will be much appreciated

--
Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca]
>House, Nepean, Ontario, Canada, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Cluster A21<
DISCALIMER: Any injuries occuring as a direct result from the reading of this
message INCLUDING HEART PALPITATIONS is not my fault in any shape or form.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60793
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Event in Los Angeles, CA

   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290

   15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA

     LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.
  ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD

   On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National 
Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co-
inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D.
Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science
Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.

   Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space
Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell
International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world
authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or
coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial
materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David
Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.

   Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal
experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build
the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a
potential to power the globe.

   For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half
from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific
concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.

   The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar
surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted
through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous
source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever
increasing demand using proven, basic technology.

   OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the
National Space Society, which is an international non-profit
organization that promotes development of the space frontier.
The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.

       WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino
               Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.

   DIRECTIONS: Ventura Freeway 101 to Thousand Oaks, exit onto
               Lynn Road heading North (right turn from 101
               North, Left turn from 101 South), after about 1/2
               mile turn Left on Camino Dos Rios, after about 1/2
               mile make First Right into Rockwell after Camino
               Colindo, Parking at Top of Hill to the Left


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60794
From: rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1qjs1j$306@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>
>In the old days,  their used to be Arbitron stats'  that analyzed
>the readership and posting volumes  by group  and user.
>
>They were available from UUNET.   That's how you check the
>readership of Sci.space,  not some stupid  unscientific attempt
>to  flood the newsgroup.
>
>I have abetter idea.  WHy don't we all reply directly to the
>origanator  of this post,  and tell him we read sci.space ;-)
>
>
>pat

	Sigh.
	I try to make a little joke, I try to inject some humour here
and what happens?  In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn:

	"I say, that was a _joke_, son."

	I thought that the bit about McElwaine, not to mention the two
smileys, would indicate to even the most humour impaired that I was
JOKING.
	Sigh.
	(And will everyone who pat's suggestion (thanks bunches, pat)
*please* stop sending me email.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     rborden@ra.uvic.ca            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60795
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>There has been something bothering me while watching
>NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
>bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
>they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
>exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but


In pure speculation, I would guess cautions based on hazardous
pre-launch ops would qualify.  Something like "Caution:  SRBs
have just been armed."  

It does raise an interesting question as to how hard it is to 
pick out an Expected Error from an Unexpected Error in the heat
of the moment. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60796
Subject: <None>
From: bioccnt@otago.ac.nz


Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 

He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
bidder....." 

Attribution and correction of the quote would be much appreciated. 

Clive Trotman


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60797
From: nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:



>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.

I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
during assembly of one SRB. No more info as to the location in the SRB.
I agree, pretty weird.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60798
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1qk4qf$mf8@male.EBay.Sun.COM> almo@packmind.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Hey!? What happened to the solar sail race that was supposed to be
>for Columbus+500?

There was a recession, and none of the potential entrants could raise any
money.  The race organizers were actually supposed to be handling part of
the fundraising, but the less said about that the better.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60799
From: lazarus@katarina.dev.cdx.mot.com (John McGlaughlin)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:

>	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:

>			"Hey, I read sci.space!"

>Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
>(This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
>the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")

Don't you think it would be better to E-mail back to you that we read sci.space
so that you can count them and every server in the world does not have to get
BW'd to death.  Or instead you could possible cut and past all the senders into
a single post and save on header bandwidth....  Not meaning to be taken as a 
flame  it's late and we have to work toward a demo .... little punchy
-- 

-jftm-

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60800
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Clementine Science Team Selected

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

>In article <stephens.734792933@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:

>   Remember the first government scientist in the British Empire was
>   the Astronomer Royal, who was paid [...] from the Department
>   of Ordinance Budget (i.e. the military). Flamsteed House (the original
>   RGO) was built out of Army Surplus Scrap ( A gate house at the Tower of
>   London ?), and paid for by the sale of time expired gunpowder [...]

>At the time, astronomy was vital to the military, in that navigation
>and cartography were of primary impoortance to the military, and good
>cartography was impossible without good astronomy.

>The relevance these daysis somewhat less obvious.

>Nick

It still applies, except the astronomy these days is Very Long Baseline
Radio Astronomy coupled to GPS and Satellite Laser Ranging. The data
from NASA's and the Naval Observatory's (among others) is a vital 
source of data for studies into crustal dynamics, Earth rotation, and
purturbations. Every time there is a leap second added to the New Year,
remember the military and science are still co-habiting nicely. The
same VLBI was used to track Gallileo as it passed the Earth, and used
so little fuel that it can afford to observe Ida. 
 
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60801
From: 8725157m@levels.unisa.edu.au
Subject: Cold gas roll control thruster tanks

Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
for sounding rockets?

Thanks in advance,
Jim.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60802
From: <TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Apollo Training in Iceland

The Apollo astronauts also trained at (in) Meteor Crater in the Flagstaff
area (Arizona).  There is now a museum with a space shop.
Caution: they ease you by 6$. Compared to a KSC visit it's not worth.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut             |  Disclaimer:
mbp Software & Systems GmbH    |
c/o ESA/ESOC/FCSD/OAD/STB      |  Neither ESA nor mbp is responsible
Darmstadt, Germany             |  for my postings!
tnedderh@esoc.bitnet           |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60803
From: rdl1@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Lorenz)
Subject: Cold Gas tanks for Sounding Rockets

>Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
>for sounding rockets?

Well, first you work out how much cold gas you need, then make the
tanks big enough.

Working out how much cold gas is another problem, depending on
vehicle configuration, flight duration, thruster Isp (which couples
into storage pressure, which may be a factor in selecting tank
wall thickness etc.)

Ralph Lorenz
Unit for Space Sciences
University of Kent, UK

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60804
From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Subject: Big amateur rockets

I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.

Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
reach 50,000 feet.

Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.

And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.


-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas
-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME                          "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL                              "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
/*            Just remember, you *WILL* die someday.             */

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60806
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)

: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

: >There is an emergency oxygen system that is capable of maintaining a
: >breathable atmosphere in the cabin for long enough to come down, even
: >if there is something like a 5cm hole in the wall that nobody tries
: >to plug.

Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied:
: Wow.

: Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall?

Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.

Programmatically, yes, we can land an Orbiter with a 5 cm hole in
the wall -- provided that the thing which caused 5 cm hole didn't
cause a Crit 1 failure on some of the internal systems.  There are
a few places where a 5 cm hole would cause a Bad Day -- especially
if the 5 cm hole went all the way through the Orbiter and out the
other side, as could easily happen with a meteor strike.  But a
hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit
to the next available landing site.

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

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60807
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: japanese moon landing?

Afraid I can't give any more info on this.. and hoping someone in greter
NETLAND has some details.

A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

the article was very vague and unclear.  and, to make matters worse, I
didn't clip it.

does this jog anyone's memory?


thanks
dannyb@panix.com



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60808
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:
>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.
>
>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.

The situation in this regard has changed considerably in recent years.
See the discussion of "high-power rocketry" in the rec.models.rockets
frequently-asked-questions list.

This is not hardware you can walk in off the street and buy; you need
proper certification.  That can be had, mostly through Tripoli (the high-
power analog of the NAR), although the NAR is cautiously moving to extend
the upper boundaries of what it considers proper too.

You need special FAA authorization, but provided you aren't doing it under
one of the LAX runway approaches or something stupid like that, it's not
especially hard to arrange.

As with model rocketry, this sort of hardware is reasonably safe if handled
properly.  Proper handling takes more care, and you need a lot more empty
air to fly in, but it's basically just model rocketry scaled up.  As with
model rocketry, the high-power people use factory-built engines, which
eliminates the major safety hazard of do-it-yourself rocketry.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60809
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes:
>jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:
>>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.
>I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
>to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
>said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
>during assembly of one SRB.

I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said
that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside
it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up.

Why do I get the feeling that Thiokol "manager's hats" are shaped like cones?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60810
From: jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (jim jaworski)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:

> In article <734850108.F00002@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permane
> >
> >One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
> >many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
> >these individuals?
> >
> 	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:
> 
> 			"Hey, I read sci.space!"
> 
> Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
> (This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
> the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")
> 

As an Amateur Radio operator (VHF 2metres) I like to keep up with what is 
going up (and for that matter what is coming down too).
 
In about 30 days I have learned ALOT about satellites current, future and 
past all the way back to Vanguard series and up to Astro D observatory 
(space).  I borrowed a book from the library called Weater Satellites (I 
think, it has a photo of the earth with a TIROS type satellite on it.)
 
I would like to build a model or have a large color poster of one of the 
TIROS satellites I think there are places in the USA that sell them.
ITOS is my favorite looking satellite, followed by AmSat-OSCAR 13 
(AO-13).
 
TTYL
73
Jim

jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60811
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)

In article <1993Apr16.151729.8610@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied:
>: Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall?
>Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.

Are you volunteering? :)

> But a
>hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit
>to the next available landing site.

Will NASA have "available landing sites" in the Russian Republic, now that they
are Our Friends and Comrades?



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60812
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado)
Subject: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)


Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org

If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.  I have a nice
offline message reader/editor, an automated modem "mailer"
program which will pick up mail bundles (quickly and easily),
and an INSTALL.EXE to set them up painlessly.  No charge for
the sci.space feed, though you have to dial Washington, D.C.
This is NOT a BBS -- it's a store & forward system for mail
bundles, with minimum connect times.  (I'm used to overseas
calls.)  (This is not an offer for a free feed for any other
particular newsgroups.)  Speeds of up to 14400 (v32bis) are
supported.  VIP's might be offered other free services, such
as Internet address and other functionality.

I get my feed from UUNET and run a 4-line hub.  I've been
hubbing for years -- I have an extremely reliable hub.

The software I provide runs under MS-DOS (and OS/2 and Windows
as a DOS box).  Other, compatible software packages exist for
the MacIntosh and Unix.

Any responses should be private and go to:  
mark.prado@permanet.org

(By the way, to all, my apologies for the public traffic on my
glib question.  I really didn't expect public replys.  But thanks
to Bill Higgins for the interesting statistics and the lead.)

 * Origin: PerManNet FTSC <=> Internet gateway (1:109/349.2)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60813
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric
Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit
using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that
it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as
a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall
hearing recently that it was about to happen.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60814
From: rjungcla@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:
>I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
>the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
>science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
>It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.
>
>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.
>
>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
>Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.
>
>And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.
>
>
>-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas

Could it be Public Missile, Inc in Michigan?

From the description of ad here, it sounds like they're talking about
"High Power Rocketry", an outgrowth of model rocketry.  This hobby
uses non-metallic structural compoments and commerically manufactured
engines ranging in impulse classification from G to P.  The hobby
has been flourishing from early 1980s and is becoming increasing popular.
Technically this is not consider amateur rocketry.

Any rocket with a liftoff weight greater than 3.3 pounds OR using a
total impulse of G or greater, REQUIRES an FAA waiver to launch.
Typically, a group of people get an FAA waiver for specified period
of time (ie week, weekend, etc.) at a designated site and time, and
all of the launches are then covered under this "blanket waiver".
There is also a "High Power Safety Code" which designates more
specific rules such as launch field size, etc.

Finally, in order to purchase any of the larger (Class B) rocket 
motors you need to certified through either the National Association
of Rocketry or Tripoli Rocketry Association. Certification procedures
require a demonstarted handling and "safe" flight at a total impulse
level.

For more information, watch rec.models.rockets newsgroup.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60815
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

Let's see. These aren't, in a strict sense, amateur rockets. That term
denotes rockets, the engines of which are constructed by the user. The
rockets you describe are called HPR, or high power rockets, to
distinguish them from (smaller) model rockets. They use factory-made
ammonium perchlorate composite propellants in phenolic plastic engines
with graphite nozzles. The engines are classified by impulse. A "D"
engine, for example, can have no more than 20 newton-seconds of impulse.
An "F" engine can have no more than 40 ns. Each letter corresponds to a
doubling of the maximum impulse. So far, engines up to size "O" are
available pretty much off the shelf. Engines of size H and above are
shipped as Class B explosives, and as such are controlled. Engines of
size F and below are shipped as Class C explosives, and are not as
controlled. Class F engines, BTW, are not HPR engines, but model rocket
engines. (Class G engines go in and out of legal limbo.)

There is an HPR Society, The Tripoli Rocket Society, I believe, which
holds events at various sites throughout the year, with all legalities
(FAA waiver included) taken care of. The National Association of
Rocketry is more concerned with engines below H, though it is involved
in HPR as well. These societies certify users of HPR rockets, and
companies will not sell to uncertified individuals.

Bottom Line: It's legit. I suggest you send for a catalog - but forget
the dynamite, will ya?

-Larry C.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60816
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Event near Los Angeles, CA

Apologies if this gets posted twice, but I don't think the first one
made it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290

   15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA

     LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.
  ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD

   On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National 
Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co-
inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D.
Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science
Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.

   Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space
Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell
International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world
authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or
coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial
materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David
Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.

   Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal
experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build
the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a
potential to power the globe.

   For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half
from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific
concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.

   The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar
surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted
through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous
source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever
increasing demand using proven, basic technology.

   OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the
National Space Society, which is an international non-profit
organization that promotes development of the space frontier.
The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.

       WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino
               Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.

   DIRECTIONS: Ventura Freeway 101 to Thousand Oaks, exit onto
               Lynn Road heading North (right turn from 101
               North, Left turn from 101 South), after about 1/2
               mile turn Left on Camino Dos Rios, after about 1/2
               mile make First Right into Rockwell after Camino
               Colindo, Parking at Top of Hill to the Left


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60817
From: drunen@nucleus.ps.uci.edu (Eric Van Drunen)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

Actually, they are legal! I not familiar with the ad you are speaking of
but knowing Popular Science it is probably on the fringe.  However, you
may be speaking of "Public Missle, Inc.", which is a legitimate company
that has been around for a while.

Due to advances in composite fuels, engines are now available for model
rockets using similar composites to SRB fuel, roughly 3 times more 
powerful than black powder motors.  They are even available in a reloadable
form, i.e. aluminum casing, end casings, o-rings (!).  The engines range
from D all the way to M in common manufacture, N and O I've heard of
used at special occasions.

To be a model rocket, however, the rocket can't contain any metal 
structural parts, amongst other requirements.  I've never heard of a
model rocket doing 50,000.  I have heard of > 20,000 foot flights.
These require FAA waivers (of course!).  There are a few large national
launches (LDRS, FireBALLS), at which you can see many > K sized engine
flights.  Actually, using a > G engine constitutes the area of "High
Power Rocketry", which is seperate from normal model rocketry.  Purchase
of engines like I have been describing require membership in the National
Association of Rocketry, the Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., or you have to
be part of an educational institute or company involved in rocketry.

Amatuer rocketry is another area.  I'm not really familiar with this,
but it is an area where metal parts are allowed, along with liquid fuels
and what not.  I don't know what kind of regulations are involved, but
I'm sure they are numerous.

High power rocketry is very exciting!  If you are interested or have 
more questions, there is a newsgroup rec.model.rockets.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60818
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In <1993Apr15.234154.23145@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work
>on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have
>some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital
>prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for
>another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with
>major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a
>set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.

Would the sub-orbital version be suitable as-is (or "as-will-be") for use
as a reuseable sounding rocket?


>Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of
>this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next
>year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.

Thank Ghod! I had thought that Spacelifter would definitely be the
bastard Son of NLS.


(And just as a reminder:)
>Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made
>for spending half on DC.

>Public support is STILL critical. Meet with your Congressperson (I'll
>help you do it) and get his/her support. Also call your local media
>and get them to cover the flight tests.




Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60819
From: kpa@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Karl Anderson)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?

From another space forum
>  NOW WHERE DID I LEAVE THOSE PLIERS?
    When workers at the Kennedy Space Center disassembled the STS-56
 solid rocket boosters they were surprised to find a pair of pliers
 lodged into the outside base of the right hand SRB.  The tool survived
 the trip from the launch pad up to approximately a 250,000 foot
 altitude, then down to splashdown and towing back to KSC.

    NASA spokesperson Lisa Malone told the media,

    "It's been a long time since something like this happened.  We've
 lost washers and bolts (before) but never a tool like this."

    The initial investigation into the incident has shown that a
 Thiokol Corp. technician noticed and reported his pliers as missing on
 April 2nd.  Unfortunately, the worker's supervisor did not act on the
 report and Discovery was launched with its "extra payload".  NASA
 officials were never told of the missing tool before the April 8th
 launch date.

    The free-flying pliers were supposed to be tethered to the SRB
 technician.  When the tool was found in an aft section of the booster,
 its 18-inch long rope was still attached.  The pliers were found in a
 part of the booster which is not easily visible from the launch pad.
|(Ron's ed. note:  naaahhh,  just too easy)

    A spokesperson for the Lockheed Space Operations Company said that
 the Shuttle processor will take "appropriate action".  Thiokol is a
 subcontractor to LSOC for work to prepare Shuttle hardware for launch.

_________________________________________________________

Karl Anderson	
DEV/2000: Configuration Management/Version Control

Dept 53K/006-2		Rochester, Minnesota 55901
253-8044		Tie 8-453-8044
INTERNET: karl@vnet.ibm.com
PRODIGY: CMMG96A

"To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield."
			Alfred Lord Tennyson

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60820
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: A WRENCH in the works?


In article <25228@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes:
>>jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:
>>>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the
>>>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of
>>>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case.
>>I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred
>>to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also
>>said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind
>>during assembly of one SRB.

It was a test of the first reusable tool.

>
>I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said
>that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside
>it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up.
>
>Why do I get the feeling that Thiokol "manager's hats" are shaped like cones?

Pointy so they can find them or so they will stick into their pants better, and
be closer to their brains?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60821
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.

The Japanese spacecraft, Hiten, crashed on the Moon last weekend.  For the
past three years it has made several lunar flybys and even did some
aerobraking experiments with Earth's atmosphere.  It was placed in lunar
orbit in February 1992, and I guess it finally ran out of fuel and was
unable to maintain its orbit around the Moon.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60822
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Washington Post Article on US-Russian Space Cooperation

Reported yesterday in the Washington Post (Kathy Sawyer, writer):

The article plays down the Russian role in US space.

Gibbons (science advisor to Clinton) sent Goldin a letter indicating
NASA should not limit redesign options to those compatible with Mir
orbit.

The White House thinks expectations for Russian cooperation have been
raised too high.

The article reports that some think the spending and schedule limits
for space station are so stringent that the redesign is nearly
impossible.  That's why some think Goldin has begun looking at 
Russian hardware.

Goldin states NASA will present all options to the administration 
which will then have decision making power.

Goldin and the White House have totally ruled out using Energia to
boost the station.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60823
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5L2xt.IqD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention
>>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just
>>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.
>
>Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric
>Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit
>using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that
>it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as
>a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall
>hearing recently that it was about to happen.


The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
deceleration.

	This from an issue of 'Science News' or 'The Planetary Report' I
believe, about 2 months ago(?).


Raymond L. Swartz Jr. (rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu)
================================================================================
I read the newspaper today and was amazed that, in 24 hours, five billion
people could accomplish so little.
================================================================================


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60824
From: goltz@mimi.UU.NET (James P. Goltz)
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?


  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.  It
would be a drive using thermonuclear explosions to drive a spacecraft.
The idea was that you'd detonate devices with somewhere from one to
ten megatons yield behind a "pusher plate" attached to the main
spacecraft.  The shock wave from the explosions would transfer
momentum to the ship.

  Now, in an atmosphere I can see this.  The energy of the explosion
heats the atmosphere, which expands explosively and slams a shock wave
into the pusher plate.  But in a vacuum, only two things I can see are
going to hit the plate: fission/fusion products (barium, krypton,
helium, neutrons, evaporated bomb casing) and electromagnetic
radiation (gammas mostly, some light/heat from irradiated fission
products).

  Would this work?  I can't see the EM radiation impelling very much
momentum (especially given the mass of the pusher plate), and it seems
to me you're going to get more momentum transfer throwing the bombs
out the back of the ship than you get from detonating them once
they're there.

  I must be missing something.  Would someone enlighten me via email?

  Thanks.

-- 
	--Jim

---
Jim Goltz                    AlterNet Engineer               goltz@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60825
From: mwm+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Maimone)
Subject: How to read sci.space without netnews

In article <734975852.F00001@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
>but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
>feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.	

	Kudos to Mark for his generous offer, but there already exists a
large (email-based) forwarding system for sci.space posts:  Space Digest.
It mirrors sci.space exactly, and provides simple two-way communication.

	TO SUBSCRIBE:
	   Send the following message in the *body* (not subject) of an
	   email message:

		subscribe space John Q Public

	   to one of these addresses:

		listserv@uga
		listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu
		listserv@finhutc
		listserv@finhuc.hut.fi
		space-request@isu.isunet.edu

	   You'll receive all the posts in "digest" form once a day.  Please
	   use a listserv if you can, the "space-request" address is handled
	   manually.

	TO POST MESSAGES:
	   Send your message (with a reasonable Subject line) to:

		space@isu.isunet.edu

Questions, comments to space-request@isu.isunet.edu
-- 
Mark Maimone				phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
Carnegie Mellon Computer Science	email: mwm@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60826
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <C5LDoD.7pC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
>down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
>expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
>originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
>was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
>deceleration.

Actually, Hiten wasn't originally intended to go into lunar orbit at all,
so it indeed didn't have much fuel on hand.  The lunar-orbit mission was
an afterthought, after Hagoromo (a tiny subsatellite deployed by Hiten
during a lunar flyby) had a transmitter failure and its proper insertion
into lunar orbit couldn't be positively confirmed.

It should be noted that the technique does have disadvantages.  It takes
a long time, and you end up with a relatively inconvenient lunar orbit.
If you want something useful like a low circular polar orbit, you do have
to plan to expend a certain amount of fuel, although it is reduced from
what you'd need for the brute-force approach.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60827
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> goltz@mimi.UU.NET (James P. Goltz) writes:
>  Would this work?  I can't see the EM radiation impelling very much
>momentum (especially given the mass of the pusher plate), and it seems
>to me you're going to get more momentum transfer throwing the bombs
>out the back of the ship than you get from detonating them once
>they're there.

The Orion concept as actually proposed (as opposed to the way it has been
somewhat misrepresented in some fiction) included wrapping a thick layer
of reaction mass -- probably plastic of some sort -- around each bomb.
The bomb vaporizes the reaction mass, and it's that which transfers
momentum to the pusher plate.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60828
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)



I thought that under emergency conditions,  the STS  can
put down at any good size Airport.  IF it could take a C-5 or a
747, then it can take an orbiter.   You just need a VOR/TAC

I don't know if they need ILS.

pat

ANyone know for sure.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60829
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr16.014506.27923@sol.UVic.CA> rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:
|In article <1qjs1j$306@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|>
|>
|>In the old days,  their used to be Arbitron stats'  that analyzed
|>the readership and posting volumes  by group  and user.
|>
|>They were available from UUNET.   That's how you check the
|>readership of Sci.space,  not some stupid  unscientific attempt
|>to  flood the newsgroup.
|>
|>I have abetter idea.  WHy don't we all reply directly to the
|>origanator  of this post,  and tell him we read sci.space ;-)
|>
|>
|>pat
|
|	Sigh.
|	I try to make a little joke, I try to inject some humour here
|and what happens?  In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn:
|
|	"I say, that was a _joke_, son."
|
|	I thought that the bit about McElwaine, not to mention the two
|smileys, would indicate to even the most humour impaired that I was
|JOKING.
>	Sigh.
>	(And will everyone who pat's suggestion (thanks bunches, pat)
>*please* stop sending me email.)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
>|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     rborden@ra.uvic.ca            |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, I had put a Wink at the end of my suggestion indicating it was
intensely sarcastic.  I can't help it if everyone got all serious.

Ross.

	I never saw your original posting.  it dropped on the floor
somewhere.  I just saw the trickle down, thought it was intensely
stupid,  not knowing anything about the joke, mentioned arbitron
and left it with an equally stupid joke.  Bill in his ever increasing
devotion to thoroughness dug up  several  arbitron stats.

I myself think the arbitron stats are  severely methodologically impaired,
but are a good measure of proportion.  I don't think anyone
knows how many people read news anymore.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60830
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

> there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit

Is it right??? That is new stuff for me. So it means that  you just can 
not put a sattellite around around the Moon for too long because its 
orbit will be unstable??? If so, what is the reason??? Is that because 
the combined gravitacional atraction of the Sun,Moon and Earth 
that does not provide a stable  orbit around the Moon???

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60831
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Portuguese Launch Complex (was:*Doppelganger*)

> Portugese launch complex were *wonderful

Portuguese launch complex??? Gosh.... Polish are for American in the 
same way as Portuguese are for Brazilians (I am from Brazil). There is 
a joke about the Portuguese Space Agency that wanted to send a 
Portuguese  astronaut to the surface of the Sun (if there is such a thing).
How did they solve all problems of sending a man to the surface of the 
Sun??? Simple... their astronauts travelled during the night...

 C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60832
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST


>Marshall is investigating a small but odd pressure rise in one SRB
>during the Jan 12 Endeavour launch.  It lasted only three seconds and
>the thrust difference between the two SRBs was not enough to cause
>nozzle gimballing.  The SRB casing shows no abnormalities.

Is this the one that had the {wrench|pliers} found inside after
recovery?



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60833
Subject: Quotation? Lowest bidder...
From: bioccnt@otago.ac.nz


Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 

He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
bidder....." 

Attribution and correction of the quote would be much appreciated. 

Clive Trotman


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60834
From: semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Steve Emmett)
Subject: Moscow Aviation Institute summer school

I have attached a copy of an announcement I picked up during my trip to
Moscow last week.  I have several friends at the Moscow Aviation
Institute who have asked me to post this announcement.  (I have done
some editing, but the contents is unchanged from the original
announcement.) 

For those of you not familiar with the Moscow Aviation Institute, it is
the leading Russian school of higher education dedicated to the training
of aircraft and spacecraft designers.  It specializes in airframe
design, powerplant design, control systems, and power systems.
Virtually all of the major former Soviet airframe designers (Tupolev,
Su, Iluchine, Migoyan, etc.) were schooled at MAI.

I had the opportunity to tour the two museums that are maintained at
MAI.  The aircraft include Mig23, Su 27, Yak 38, the cockpit of an
F-111(!), among others.  It was a fascinating and eye opening
experience, expecially given the fact that the museum was, until a year
or so ago, closed to virtually everyone.  I also had the opportunity to
see some of the experiments being conducted with plasma drive engines
for future space craft use.

If you have any questions about the Institute, or the program, I would
be glad to try and answer them.  The institute, and most of it's faculty
have e-mail addresses.  However, it takes about a day or so for the
receiver to get the message.  They are still a bit antiquated - but they
are rapidly changing!

Steve Emmett
semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu

ps  please send any questions you have for me via e-mail.  George Mason
university has about a 2 week (!) delay in news feed delivery.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

		MOSCOW INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SCHOOL

The aviation school "Poljot" (meaning Flight) is organized by the the
Moscow Aviation Institute, the prominent Russian Center of airspace
education and the foreign trade firm Poljot, well known in various
parts of the world for their quartz and mechanical wrist watches.

The course of studies will last only 50 days, but during this time
you will have the unique opportunity:
	- to listen to intensive courses on the main aviation
disciplines, the history and theory of techniques, and design of
airplanes;
	- to visit and get acquainted with the world known Russian 
aviation firms - TU, MiG, Yak, Il and Su;
	- to meet and have discussions with famous aviation
scientists, engineers and pilots;
	- to visit the most interesting museums of unique aviation
techniques which were closed for many years to the public;
	- to see the International Airspace Show which will take
place in Moscow from 31 August through 3 September 1993;
	- to visit famous art museums, historical and architectural
monuments, theatres and concert halls;
	- to take part in sport competitions and have a great time
with new friends.

The Director of the school is Mr. Oleg Samelovich, a well known
Russian scientist, professor, general designer and the Chief of the
Airplanes Design Department of the Moscow Aviation Institute.  Mr.
Samelovich is one of the designers of the the Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27

The lectures are given in English, using a multi-media concept.  The
students are provided with all the necessary text books and
literature.  After the full course of studies are completed, the
student will receive a special certificate of graduation.

The cost of studies, including hotel, meals, excursions, theatres,
etc is $3500.

To apply for admission, send your application to:

109147 Moscow Marksistskaja 34
Foreign Trade Firm "Poljot"
274 00 13 (phone)
274 00 22 (FAX)
411989 POLEX SU (telex)

In your application, include your full name, address, date and place
of birth.  In addition, include complete passport information, as well
as a description of your education.

Upon receipt of this information, "Poljot" will immediately forward
to you an official invitation for obtaining a Russian entrance visa
as well as details on payment.

Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

(signed)	O. Samelovich

------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

Steve Emmett				 semmett@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
CSI/Physics, George Mason University

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60835
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject:  ORION space drive

An excellent reference for non-technical readers on the ORION system is
"The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff, ISBN
0-471-61912-4. The relevant chapter is 4: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

The book also contains lots of technical references for the more academically
inclined. 

Enjoy!
---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60836
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: japanese moon landing/temporary orbit

rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:

>The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
>are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
>three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
>earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
>allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
>down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
>expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
>originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
>was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
>deceleration.


I should probably re-post this with another title, so that
the guys on the other thread would see that this is a practical
use of "temporary orbits..."

Another possible temporary orbit:

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60837
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing?

In article <1qnb9tINN7ff@rave.larc.nasa.gov> C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>> there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit
>
>Is it right??? That is new stuff for me. So it means that  you just can 
>not put a sattellite around around the Moon for too long because its 
>orbit will be unstable??? If so, what is the reason??? Is that because 
>the combined gravitacional atraction of the Sun,Moon and Earth 
>that does not provide a stable  orbit around the Moon???

Any lunar satellite needs fuel to do regular orbit corrections, and when
its fuel runs out it will crash within months.  The orbits of the Apollo
motherships changed noticeably during lunar missions lasting only a few
days.  It is *possible* that there are stable orbits here and there --
the Moon's gravitational field is poorly mapped -- but we know of none.

Perturbations from Sun and Earth are relatively minor issues at low
altitudes.  The big problem is that the Moon's own gravitational field
is quite lumpy due to the irregular distribution of mass within the Moon.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60838
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56     
1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.58333333  .00090711  00000-0  25599-3 0   249
2 22621  57.0029 144.8669 0004136 304.2989 134.3206 15.92851555  1179
1993 023B  
1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86
2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60839
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Guns for Space

In reference to the limits of acceleration with guns launching solid
rockets as payloads.  Thiokol provided me with samples and data on
a reinforcement to solid motor grains for high accelerations.  Solid
motor propellants usually have a substantial percentage of 
aluminum in the mix.  For example, the Space Shuttle SRBs are 16 percent
Aluminum.  The technique is to use a 'foamed aluminum' structure.
The structure looks like the inverse of a set of bubbles (an I suspect
some bubbling process is used to form it).  In other words, if you made
a bunch of bubbles in molten aluminum, then froze it, this is what
you get.  It forms a strong network of effectively aluminum wires in
all directions.  The remaining solid fuel mix is infiltrated into
the voids, and you get aluminum-reinforced solid propellant.  The
foamed-aluminum makes up about 6 percent of the total propellant,
so there is still aluminum particles in the bulk grain.  The major
improvement is the higher resistance to grain cracking, which is the
principal failure mode for solid propellant.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60840
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Guns for Space


Okay, lets get the record straight on the Livermore gas gun.  
The project manager is Dr. John Hunter, and he works for the
Laser group at Livermore.  What, you may ask, does gas guns
have to do with lasers? Nothing, really, but the gun is physically
located across the road from the Free Electron Laser building,
and the FEL building has a heavily shielded control room (thick walls)
from which the gun firings are controlled.  So I suspect that the
office he works for is an administrative convenience.

I visited Hunter at the beginning of Feb. and we toured the gun.
At the time I was working on gas gun R&D at Boeing, where I work,
but I am now doing other things (helping to save the space station),

The gun uses a methane-air mixture, which is burned in a chamber
about 200 ft long by 16 inch ID (i.e. it looks like a pipe).
The chamber holds a 1 ton piston which is propelled at several
hundred m/s down the chamber.  On the other side of the piston
is hudrogen gas, initially at room temperature andsome tens
of atmospheres.

The piston compresses and heats the hydrogen ahead of it until
a stainless steel burst diaphragm ruptures, at around 50,000 psi.
The barrel of the gun is about 100 feet long and has a 4 inch
bore.  It is mounted at right angles to the chamber (i.e. they
intersect).  This was done so that in the future, the barrel
could be raised and the gun fired into the air without having to
move the larger and heavier chamber.  The projectile being used
in testing is a 5 kg cylinder of Lexan plastic, 4 in in diameter
and about 50 cm long.

All of the acceleration comes from the expansion of the hydrogen
gas from 50,000 psi downwards until the projectile leaves the
barrel.  The barrel is evacuated, and the end is sealed with a
sheet of plastic film (a little thicker than Saran wrap).  The
plastic is blown off by the small amount of residual air trapped
in the barrel ahead of the projectile.  

The gun is fired into a bunker filled with sandbags and plastic
water jugs.  In the early testing fragments of the plastic
projectile were found.  At the higher speeds in later testing,
the projectile vaporizes.

The testing is into a bunker because the Livermore test range is
about 3 miles across, and the projectile would go 100-200 km
if fired for maximum range.  The intent is to move the whole gun
to Vandenberg AFB after the testing is complete, where they can
fire into the Pacific Ocean, and use the tracking radar at VAFB
to follow the projectiles.

The design goal of the gun is to throw a 5 kg projectile at 4
km/s (half of orbital speed).  So far they have reached 2 km/s,
and the gun is currently down for repairs, as on the last test
they blew a seal and damaged some of the hardware (I think it
had to do with the methane-air more detonating than burning, but
I haven't had a chance to talk to Hunter directly on this).

There are people waiting to test scramjet components in this
gun by firing then out of the gun into the air (at Mach 12=
4 km/s), since the most you can get in wind tunnels is Mach 8.

This gun cost about 4 million to develop, and is basically
a proof-of-concept for a bigger gun capable of firing useful-
sized payloads into space.  This would require on the order of
100 kg projectiles, which deliver on the order of 20 kg
useful payload to orbit.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60841
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Elevator to the top floor


Reading from a Amoco Performance Products data sheet, their
ERL-1906 resin with T40 carbon fiber reinforcement has a compressive
strength of 280,000 psi.  It has a density of 0.058 lb/cu in,
therefore the theoretical height for a constant section column
that can just support itself is 4.8 million inches, or 400,000 ft,
or 75 Statute miles.

Now, a real structure will have horizontal bracing (either a truss
type, or guy wires, or both) and will be used below the crush strength.
Let us assume that we will operate at 40% of the theoretical 
strength.  This gives a working height of 30 miles for a constant
section column.  

A constant section column is not the limit on how high you can
build something if you allow a tapering of the cross section
as you go up.  For example, let us say you have a 280,000 pound
load to support at the top of the tower (for simplicity in
calculation).  This requires 2.5 square inches of column cross
sectional area to support the weight.  The mile of structure
below the payload will itself weigh 9,200 lb, so at 1 mile 
below the payload, the total load is now 289,200 lb, a 3.3% increase.

The next mile of structure must be 3.3% thicker in cross section
to support the top mile of tower plus the payload.  Each mile
of structure must increase in area by the same ratio all the way
to the bottom.  We can see from this that there is no theoretical
limit on area, although there will be practical limits based
on how much composites we can afford to by at $40/lb, and how
much load you need to support on the ground (for which you need
a foundation that the bedrock can support.

Let us arbitrarily choose $1 billion as the limit in costruction
cost.  With this we can afford perhaps 10,000,000 lb of composites,
assuming our finished structure costs $100/lb.  The $40/lb figure
is just for materials cost.  Then we have a tower/payload mass
ratio of 35.7:1.  At a 3.3% mass ratio per mile, the tower
height becomes 111 miles.  This is clearly above the significant
atmosphere.  A rocket launched from the top of the tower will still
have to provide orbital velocity, but atmospheric drag and g-losses
will be almost eliminated.  G-losses are the component of
rocket thrust in the vertical direction to counter gravity,
but which do not contribute to horizontal orbital velocity.  Thus
they represent wasted thrust.  Together with drag, rockets starting
from the ground have a 15% velocity penalty to contend with.

This analysis is simplified, in that it does not consider wind
loads.  These will require more structural support over the first
15 miles of height.  Above that, the air pressure drops to a low
enough value for it not to be a big factor.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60842
From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Subject: End of the Space Age

There is an interesting opinion piece in the business section of today's
LA Times (Thursday April 15, 1993, p. D1).  I thought I'd post it to
stir up some flame wars - I mean reasoned debate.  Let me preface it by
saying that I largely agree that the "Space Age" in the romantic sense
of several decades ago is over, and that projects like the space station
miss the point at this time.  Reading, for example, "What's New" -
the weekly physics update we get here on the net - it's clear that the
romance of the day lies in the ever more fine-grained manipulation of
matter: by which I include biotechnology, condensed matter physics (with
its spinoffs in computer hardware and elsewhere), and the amazing things
people are doing with individual atoms these days.  To a large extent, I
think, the romance some people still have with space is a matter of
nostalgia.  I feel sure that someday we - or more precisely, our "mind
children" - will spread across space (unless we wipe ourselves out); but
I think that *manned* space exploration is not what is exciting about
what we can do *now*.   

Anyway, let me quote some of this article, but not all...


SPACE AGE GLORY FADES FROM VIEW

Micheal Schrage (writer, consultant, and research associate at MIT)

At 35, America's Space Age won't have to suffer through the angst of a
midlife crisis.

The reason is that the Space Age is already dead.  The technologies no
longer define our times, and the public has grown weary of the multibillion
-dollar celestial investments that yield minimal psychic or economic
rewards.  

Space exploration has mutated from a central focuse of America's science
and technology debate into a peripheral issue.  Speace is not a
meaningful part of the ongoing industrial competitiveness debate, our
technology infrastructure discussions or even our defense conversion
policy.  

To be sure, America should continue to invest in satellite technologies
for telecommunications and remote sensing - cheap deep-space probes
would be nice too - but the ideal of space as a meaningful driver of
scientific and industrial innovation is now dead.

.....

Before the change in administrations, it would have been foolish to
write an obituary for the Space Age.  The Bush White House aggressively
supported the space program and proposed spending well over $30 billion
to build space station Freedom alone.

Even as he proposed budget cuts in other science and technology domains,
Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman was an outspoken
public champion of big-ticket space expenditures.  The reality that much
of the civilian space program - from the shuttle to the Hubble telescope
to the space station - was poorly conceived and unimpressively
implemented did not seem to matter much.

Political inertia and a nostalgic sense of futurism - not a coherent
vision or cost-effective sensibilities - determined multibillion-dollar
space budgets.

Indeed, with few notable exceptions, such as Voyager, the post-Apollo
era is the story of the gold-plated porkification of space exploration
with programs and promises that delivered less for more and more.  

......

While the Clinton Administration has kept on the highly regarded Daniel
Goldin as administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, it seems clear that space exploration is not being
positioned as either a symbolic or substantive centerpiece of America's
technological prowess.  The space station budget has - rightly - been
slashed.  Space is virtually ignored when the Administration champions
its competitiveness agenda.

......

"I wish this had happened 10 years ago instead of starting to happen
now," says Bruce Murray, a Caltech professor who ran NASA's Jet
Propulsion Lab in Pasadena.  "We've put off a lot of things we shouldn't
have.... I would rather see a $10-billion NASA doing well than a
$40-billion one filled with white elephants."

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60843
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> James P. Goltz, goltz@mimi.UU.NET
writes:
>  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.

It was more than a theoretical concept; it was seriously pursued by
Freeman Dyson et al many years ago. I don't know how well-known this is,
but a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
Diego back in 1957 or 1958. I was working at General Atomic at the time,
but I didn't learn about the experiment until almost thirty years later,
when 
Ted Taylor visited us and revealed that it had been done. I feel sure
that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

Leigh

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60844
Subject: help for school
From: mcrandall@eagle.wesleyan.edu

I am a newbie to the net, and I am trying to get some information for a paper
I am working on to get back into college.  If anyone can send me data on
Solar coronal holes and recurrant aurora  for the past thirty years it would be
a big help.  Or, if you have information on more esoteric things like Telluric
current, surge bafflers power companies use, or other effects sporatic aurora
have on the Earth's magnetic field, I'd be eternally gratefull.  Please send 
anything interesting to me at
        Marty Crandall-Grela
        Van Vleck Observatory
        Wesleyan University
        Middletown,Ct 06487
 or e-mail it to me at mcrandall@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 Thank-you in advance,      Marty


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60845
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu>, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
> 
> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>  Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject
>  back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information.
> 
> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?
> 
> 					Frank Snyder
> 					Auburn University
> 
> 					snydefj@eng.auburn.edu


I know someone had long talks about Solar Sails early this year and late last
year..Also about Solar Sailing. Not sure who captured it if possible..

I think it was one of the regulars who had most or all the data?

I think I started the latest round or the late last year round.. But the topic
has been around here, off and on for a year or two..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60846
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Russian Email Contacts.

Does anyone have any Russian Contacts (Space or other) or contacts in the old
USSR/SU or Eastern Europe?

Post them here so we all can talk to them and ask questions..
I think the cost of email is high, so we would have to  keep the content to
specific topics and such..

Basically if we want to save Russia and such, then we need to make contacts,
contacts are a form of info, so lets get informing.

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Alive in Nome, Alaska (once called Russian America).


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60847
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Quotation Was:(Re: <None|)

In article <1993Apr16.155656.1@otago.ac.nz| bioccnt@otago.ac.nz writes:
|
|Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation? 
|
|He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to
|the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a
|million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest
|bidder....." 
|
Sounds similar to something Wally Schirra said.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60848
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation


The difficulties of a high Isp OTV include:
Long transfer times (radiation damage from VanAllen belts for both
 the spacecraft and OTV
Arcjets or Xenon thrusters require huge amounts of power so you have
to have either nuclear power source (messy, dangerous and source of
radiation damage) or BIG solar arrays (sensitive to radiation, or heavy)
that make attitude control and docking a big pain.

If you go solar, you have to replace the arrays every trip, with
current technology. Nuclear power sources are strongly restricted
by international treaty.

Refueling (even for very high Isp like xenon) is still required and]
turn out to be a pain.

You either have to develop autonomous rendezvous or long range teleoperation
to do docking or    ( and refueling) .

You still can't do much plane change because the deltaV required is so high!

The Air Force continues to look at doing things this way though. I suppose
they are biding their time till the technology becomes available and
the problems get solved.  Not impossible in principle, but hard to
do and marginally cheaper than one shot rockets, at least today.

Just a few random thoughts on high Isp OTV's. I designed one once...

                          Steve Collins

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60849
From: ktj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (kerry todd johnson)
Subject: army in space


Is anybody out there willing to discuss with me careers in the Army that deal
with space?  After I graduate, I will have a commitment to serve in the Army, 
and I would like to spend it in a space-related field.  I saw a post a long
time ago about the Air Force Space Command which made a fleeting reference to
its Army counter-part.  Any more info on that would be appreciated.  I'm 
looking for things like: do I branch Intelligence, or Signal, or other?  To
whom do I voice my interest in space?  What qualifications are necessary?
Etc, etc.  BTW, my major is computer science engineering.

Please reply to ktj@reef.cis.ufl.edu

Thanks for ANY info.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be         =
= considered an enemy planet.  --  Jack Handy                                 =
---ktj@reef.cis.ufl.edu---cirop59@elm.circa.ufl.edu---endeavour@circa.ufl.edu--

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60850
From: mrw9e@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> James P. Goltz, goltz@mimi.UU.NET
>writes:
>>  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.
>
>It was more than a theoretical concept; it was seriously pursued by
>Freeman Dyson et al many years ago. I don't know how well-known this is,
>but a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
>Diego back in 1957 or 1958. I was working at General Atomic at the time,
>but I didn't learn about the experiment until almost thirty years later,
>when 
>Ted Taylor visited us and revealed that it had been done. I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?
>
>Leigh

Nope, I haven't seen the film, but Taylor's biography ("The Curve of 
Binding Energy") contains a short section on Orion and this test flight.
Apparently it was quite impressi, and got von Braun very excited.

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60851
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

There is a guy in NASA Johnson Space Center  that might answer 
your question. I do not have his name right now but if you follow 
up I can dig that out for you.

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60852
From: u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Subject: End of the Space Age?

We are not at the end of the Space Age, but only at the end of Its
beginning.

That space exploration is no longer a driver for technical innovation,
or a focus of American cultural attention is certainly debatable; however,
technical developments in other quarters will always be examined for
possible applications in the space area and we can look forward to
many innovations that might enhance the capabilities and lower the
cost of future space operations. 

The Dream is Alive and Well.

-Jeff Bytof
member, technical staff
Institute for Remote Exploration


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60853
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.

Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60854
From: nether@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Joel C Belog)
Subject: Space Shuttle information wanted



Hello everyone,

	I was hoping someone could help me out.  I'm writing a program
	for my astronautics class for assent of the shuttle into a low
	orbit.  There are two things I'd like to know, First, how much 
	time elapses between launch and the pitch over. Second, what is
	the cross-sectional area of the shuttle, srb's, and ext. tank.

	Thanks for any information, post or e-mail.

	Joel Belog
	nether@wpi.wpi.edu
	

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60855
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: army in space

ktj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (kerry todd johnson) writes:

> Is anybody out there willing to discuss with me careers in the Army that deal
> with space?  After I graduate, I will have a commitment to serve in the Army,
> and I would like to spend it in a space-related field.  I saw a post a long
> time ago about the Air Force Space Command which made a fleeting reference to
> its Army counter-part.  Any more info on that would be appreciated.  I'm 
> looking for things like: do I branch Intelligence, or Signal, or other?  To
> whom do I voice my interest in space?  What qualifications are necessary?
> Etc, etc.  BTW, my major is computer science engineering.

Kerry-- I'm guessing a little at this, because it's been a few years 
since I saw the info, but you will probably want to look at Air Defense 
Artillery as a specialty, or possibly Signals.  The kind of thing you're 
looking for is SDI-type assignments, but it'll be pretty prosaic stuff.
Things like hard-kill ATBM missiles, some of the COBRA rigs -- that kind 
of thing.  

Hope that gives you some ideas on where to look, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60856
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <1993Apr10.145502.28866@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <9APR199318394890@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>>>BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of
>>>10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge).
> 
>>Wrong Allen. The max overhead charge is ALL of the charge. There is no
>>seperately budgeted overhead in any shape size form or fashion. 
> 
>A professor at the University of Virginia told me their wrap was about
>15%. The subcontracts I have let out and worked on for other universities
>are about the same. My employer (a non-profit research institute) does
>the same. This is generally reffered to as the fee.
> 

I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
wrap at this university. I also asked around here. Ther is no wrap at 
Marquette, University of Wisconsin Madison, Utah State, Weber State or
Embry Riddle U. I am not saying that it doees not happen but in every instance
that I have been able to track down it does not. Also the president of our
University who was Provost at University of West Virgina said that it did
not happen there either and that this figure must be included in the overhead
to be a legitimate charge.

>>How do 
>>I know? I write proposals and have won contracts and I know to the dime
>>what the charges are. At UAH for example the overhead is 36.6%.
> 
>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>costing people how much fee they add to a project.
>

I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.

>>If you have some numbers Allen then show them else quit barking. 
> 
>I did Dennis; read the article. To repeat: an internal estimate done by
>the Reston costing department says Freedom can be built for about $1.8B
>a year and operated for $1B per year *IF* all the money where spent on
>Freedom. Since we spend about half a billion $$ more per year it looks
>like roughly 25% of the money is wasted. Now if you think I'm making
>this up, you can confirm it in the anonymous editorial published a few
>weeks ago in Space News.
>

No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
of the Overhead capital of NASA. Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.
Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
at a place where everything is overhead.

>This Dennis, is why NASA has so many problems: you can't accept that
>anything is wrong unless you can blame it on Congress. Oh, sure, you'll
>say NASA has problems but do you believe it? Remember the WP 02
>overrun? You insisted it was all congresses fault when NASA management
>knew about the overrun for almost a year yet refused to act. Do you
>still blame Congress for the overrun?
>

Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
selective with the facts again.

>>By your own numbers Allen, at a cost of 500 million per flight the
>>service cost of flying shuttle to SSF is 2 billion for four flights, so how
>>did you get your one billion number?
> 
>I have no idea what your trying to say here Dennis.
> 
>  Allen
>-- 

If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
do so.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60857
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: army in space


There is the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

They were the precursors to SDIO.  and still exist under
that umbrella.  Army Signal Corp's  and DCA  defense Comm Agency
oops  DISA, they just changed names  do space work.  that's
the point of all those defense comm sats.  

But don't worry,  there are lots of jobs that need ditch digging,
somehow you'll end up there ;-)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60858
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: End of the Space Age?



Oddly, enough,  The smithsonian calls the lindbergh years
the golden age of flight.  I would call it the granite years,
reflecting the primitive nature of it.  It was  romantic,
swashbuckling daredevils,  "those daring young men in their flying
machines".  But in reality, it sucked.  Death was a highly likely
occurence,  and  the environment blew.  Ever see the early navy
pressure suits,  they were modified  diving suits.  You were ready to
star in "plan 9 from outer space".   Radios  and Nav AIds were
a joke,  and engines ran on castor oil.  They  picked and called aviators
"men with iron stomachs",  and it wasn't due to vertigo.

Oddly enough, now we are in the golden age of flight.  I can hop the
shuttle to NY for $90 bucks,  now that's golden.

Mercury gemini, and apollo were romantic,  but let's be honest.
Peeing in bags,  having plastic bags glued to your butt everytime
you needed a bowel movement.  Living for days inside a VW Bug.
Romantic,  but not commercial.   The DC-X  points out a most likely
new golden age.  An age where  fat cigar smoking business men in
loud polyester space suits will fill the skys with strip malls
and used space ship lots.

hhhmmmmm,  maybe i'll  retract that golden age bit.   Maybe it was
better in the old days.  Of course, then we'll have  wally schirra
telling his great grand children, "In my day,  we walked on the moon.
Every day.  Miles.  no buses.  you kids got it soft".

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60859
From: aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Subject: A flawed propulsion system: Space Shuttle



For an essay, I am writing about the space shuttle and a need for a better
propulsion system.  Through research, I have found that it is rather clumsy 
(i.e. all the checks/tests before launch), the safety hazards ("sitting
on a hydrogen bomb"), etc..  If you have any beefs about the current
space shuttle program Re: propulsion, please send me your ideas.

Thanks a lot.

--
Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca]
Nepean, Ontario, Canada.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60860
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>... a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San
>Diego back in 1957 or 1958...   I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
the film continuously repeating.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60861
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation

In article <C5MtyJ.12q@well.sf.ca.us> collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes:
>The difficulties of a high Isp OTV include...
>If you go solar, you have to replace the arrays every trip, with
>current technology.

You're assuming that "go solar" = "photovoltaic".  Solar dynamic power
(turbo-alternators) doesn't have this problem.  It also has rather less
air drag due to its higher efficiency, which is a non-trivial win for big
solar plants at low altitude.

Now, you might have to replace the *rest* of the electronics fairly often,
unless you invest substantial amounts of mass in shielding.

>Nuclear power sources are strongly restricted
>by international treaty.

References?  Such treaties have been *proposed*, but as far as I know,
none of them has ever been negotiated or signed.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60862
From: John Lussmyer <dragon@angus.mi.org>
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> The first flight will be a low hover that will demonstrate a vertical
> landing.  There will be no payload.  DC-X will never carry any kind

Exactly when will the hover test be done, and will any of the TV
networks carry it.  I really want to see that...

--
John Lussmyer (dragon@angus.mi.org)
Mystery Spot BBS, Royal Oak, MI --------------------------------------------?--


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60863
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <C5nGxq.663@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer,
henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:
>The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
>When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
>the film continuously repeating.

Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
month with my wife, who was also working at General Atomic at the time.
Once again netnews has enriched my life.

Leigh

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60864
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
>line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
>wrap at this university. 

Dennis, I have worked on or written proposals worth tens of millions
of $$. Customers included government (including NASA), for profit and
non-profit companies. All expected a wrap (usually called a fee). Much
of the work involved allocating and costing the work of subcontractors.
The subcontractors where universities, for-profits, non-profits, and
even some of the NASA Centers for the Commercialization of Space. ALL
charged fees as part of the work. Down the street is one of the NASA
commercialization centers; they charge a fee.

Now, I'm sure your a competent engineer Dennis, but you clearly lack
experience in several areas. Your posts show that you don't understand
the importance of integration in large projects. You also show a lack
of understanding of costing efforts as shown by your belief that it
is reasonable to charge incremental costs for everything. This isn't
a flame, jsut a statement.

Your employer DOES charge a fee. You may not see it but you do.

>>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>>costing people how much fee they add to a project.

>I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
>any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.

Well there you are Dennis. As I said, they simply include the fee in
their overhead. Many seoparate the fee since the fee structure can
change depending on the customer.

>No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
>of the Overhead capital of NASA. 

Integration, Dennis, isn't overhead.

>Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
>better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.

Dennis, Reston has been the only NASA agency working to reduce costs. When
WP 02 was hemoraging out a billion $$, the centers you love so much where
doing their best to cover it up and ignore the problem. Reston was the
only place you would find people actually interested in solving the
problems and building a station.

>Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
>at a place where everything is overhead.

When you have a bit more experience Dennis, you will realize that
integration isn't overhead. It is the single most important part
of a successful large scale effort.

>Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
>demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
>selective with the facts again.

The story you refer to said that some NASA people blamed it on
Congress. Suprise suprise. The fact remains that it is the centers
you support so much who covered up the overheads and wouldn't address
the problems until the press published the story.

Are you saying the Reston managers where wrong to get NASA to address
the overruns? You approve of what the centers did to cover up the overruns?

>If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
>of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
>"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
>for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
>blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.

You should know Dennis that NASA doesn't include transport costs for
resuply. That comes from the Shuttle budget. What they where saying
is that operational costs could be cut in half plus transport.

>Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
>to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
>do so.

I do hope you can find the time to tell us just why it was wrong of
Reston to ask that the problems with WP 02 be addressed.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------60 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60865
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Clementine mission name

Mark Prado
  
>Please go just one step further:
>How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?
  
Old pioneer song from the 1850's or so goes as follows:
  
  "In a cavern, in a canyon,
   Excavating for a mine,
   Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
   And his daughter, CLEMENTINE"
  
Chorus:
  "Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
   Oh my darling Clementine.
   You are lost and gone forever,
   Oh my darling Clementine."
  
 I've also had it explained (but not confirmed from a reliable data
source) that CLEMENTINE is an acronym.  Something like Combined
Lunar Elemental Mapper Experiment on Extended Non Terrestrial
Intercept Near Earth.  Personally, I think that acronym was made up
to fit the name (if it really is an acronym).
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60866
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Clipper Launch Article

To All -- I thought the net would find this amusing..
  
From the March 1993 "Aero Vision" (The newsletter for the Employees
of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace at Huntington Beach, California).
  
  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY
  
  "On Monday, March 15 at noon, Quest Aerospace Education, Inc.
  launched two DC-Y Space Clippers in the mall near the cafeteria.
  The first rocket was launched by Dr. Bill Gaubatz, director and
  SSTO program manager, and the second by Air Force Captain Ed
  Spalding, who with Staff Sgt. Don Gisburne represents Air Force
  Space Command, which was requested by SDIO to assess the DC-X for
  potential military operational use.  Both rocket launches were
  successful.  The first floated to the ground between the cafeteria
  and Building 11, and the second landed on the roof of the
  cafeteria.
  
  Quest's Space Clipper is the first flying model rocket of the
  McDonnell Douglas DC-X.  The 1/122nd semi-scale model of the
  McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper has an estimated maximum altitude
  of 300 feet.  The Space Clippers can be used in educational
  settings to teach mathematics and science, as well as social
  studies and other applications.  The Space Clipper is available
  either in the $35 Space Clipper outfit, which includes everything
  needed for three launches, or as individual rockets for $12 each.
  Both are available through hobby shops or by calling 1-800-858-
  7302."
  
By the way -- this is not an endorsement to buy the product nor is
it an advertisement to buy the product.  I make no claims about the
product.  This is posted for public information only (hey, I found
it amusing...), and is merely a repeat of what was included in the
MDSSC Huntington Beach Newsletter.
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60867
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: LRDPA news

        Many of you at this point have seen a copy of the 
Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act by now. This bill, also known as the Back to 
the Moon bill, would authorize the U.S. 
government to purchase lunar science data from private 
and non-profit vendors, selected on the basis of competitive bidding, with an 
aggregate cap on bid awards of $65 million. 
        If you have a copy of the bill, and can't or don't want to go through 
all of the legalese contained in all Federal legislation,don't both - you have 
a free resource to evaluate the bill for you. Your local congressional office, 
listed in the phone book,is staffed by people who can forward a copy of the
bill to legal experts. Simply ask them to do so, and to consider supporting
the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act. 
        If you do get feedback, negative or positive, from your congressional 
office, please forward it to: David Anderman
3136 E. Yorba Linda Blvd., Apt G-14, Fullerton, CA 92631,
or via E-Mail to: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org. 
        Another resource is your local chapter of the National Space Society. 
Members of the chapter will be happy to work with you to evaluate and support 
the Back to the Moon bill. For the address and telephone number of the nearest 
chapter to you, please send E-mail, or check the latest issue of Ad Astra, in 
a library near you.
        Finally, if you have requested, and not received, information about
the Back to the Moon bill, please re-send your request. The database for the
bill was recently corrupted, and some information was lost. The authors of the 
bill thank you for your patience.


--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60868
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective.


  I might suggest giving the management some more mumble time by asking
the very leading question (in two or three parts)
   What are your long term expectations of space market, what projects
specifically are they funding by internal funds and at what levels
and what competition do you expect in this  area. (This last point
is always worth hitting upper management with "gently" if you want 
them to think and as hard as you can if you have a good case that
there really is competion)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60869
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.


  I doubt there are good prospects for  a self armoring system
for venus surface conditions (several hundred degrees, very high
pressure of CO2, possibly sulfuric and nitric acids or oxides
but it is a notion to consider for outer planets rs where you might
pick up ices under less extream upper atmosphere conditions buying
deeper penetration.  A nice creative idea, unlikly but worthy of
thinking about.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60870
From: sugarman@ra.cs.umb.edu (Steven R. Garman)
Subject: WANTED - Optical Shaft Encoders for Telescope


[Also posted in misc.forsale.wanted,misc.wanted,ne.wanted,ny.wanted,nj.wanted]

WANTED:  Optical Shaft Encoders

Quantity 2
Single-ended
Incremental

Needed to encode the movements of a 16" Cassegrain telescope.  The telescope
is in the observatory of the Univ. of Mass. at Boston.  The project is being
managed by Mr. George Tucker, a graduate student at UMB.  Please call him, or
email/call me, if you have one or two of the specified type of encoder.  Of
course, due to our low funding level we are looking for a price that is
sufficiently lower than that given for new encoders.  :)

George Tucker
617-965-3408

ME:
-- 
sugarman@cs.umb.edu | 6172876077 univ | 6177313637 home | Standard Disclaimer
Boston Massachusetts USA

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60871
From: degroff@netcom.com (21012d)
Subject: Re: Atlas revisited

  I found it very interesting that Atlas depended on pressure to
maintain tank geometry....leads me to the question: ? have any 
of the SSTO concepts explored pressurized tankage such that the
launch configuration would be significantly different from the
reentry one?  I have long been facinated by pnumatic structures
as conceived and built by Frei Otto and others, a "ballon" tank
SSTO sounds very clever. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60872
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
>not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
>think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
>
>Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
>larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
>they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste*
on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo, 
but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military,
scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have 
the money, why not?" approach.

It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
use grad students?

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60873
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: army in space

Last I had heard because of budget and such the Air Farce is the only "Space
Command" left.. The rest missions were generally given to the Air Farce..

Probably a good reason for me to transfer from the Army Guard to the Air
Guard..

I hate walking with a pack on my back, and how do you put on your application
for a job as a kitchen worker, that you have done a lot of KP (Kitchen
Police)..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60874
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <15APR199320340428@stdvax> abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
>In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>>There has been something bothering me while watching
>>NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say
>>bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When
>>they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget
>>exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think)
>>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
>
>
>In pure speculation, I would guess cautions based on hazardous
>pre-launch ops would qualify.  Something like "Caution:  SRBs
>have just been armed."  

Also in pure speculation:

Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered.
   "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it"

Any problem where they decided a backup would handle it.

Any problem in an area that was not criticality 1,2,3..., that is, any
   problem in a system they decided they could do without.

I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is.

tom

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60875
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Into Infinity?(WAS:Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan?)

In <1qkn6rINNett@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

> In article <1993Apr15.170048.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> 
> >This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United
> >States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K... Later, they went
> >on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.
> >
> >The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL
> >airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to
> >look at.

Exactly. Some of the SPACE:1999 effects remain first-rate even today. 
 
> They recycled a lot of models and theme music for UFO.  Some of the
> concepts even showed up in SPACE: 1999. 
> 

Later on, the Andersons tried to shed their reputation as creators of some
of the worst pseudo-scientific shows in TV history by flying "Into Infinity."
This was a one-off thing done as part of BBC's "educational SF" series "The
Day After Tomorrow." The Anderson episode dealt with a spaceship capable of
reaching the speed of light ("lightship Altares"), the four-man crew eventually 
journeyed into a black hole and ended up on the far side of the galaxy (I
think). I saw this as a 9-year-old back in 1976 and liked it very much, but
then again I was a fan of SPACE:1999 so I guess I was easily satisfied in those
days:-)
---
Does anyone know if "Into Infinity" has been released on video? I have some
SPACE:1999 shows on VHS and know that Thunderbirds etc. also are available in
England.
 
MARCU$
> 
>     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>   -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60876
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

>There is a guy in NASA Johnson Space Center  that might answer 
>your question. I do not have his name right now but if you follow 
>up I can dig that out for you.

Keesler, Loftus, Potter, Stansbery, Kubriek....?


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60878
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject: ORION test film

Is the film from the "putt-putt" test vehicle which used conventional
explosives as a proof-of-concept test, or another one?

---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60879
From: daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis)
Subject: Re: japanese moon landing/temporary orbit

In article <pgf.735012282@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:
|> 
|> >The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These
|> >are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a
|> >three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the
|> >earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to
|> >allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow
|> >down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without
|> >expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The
|> >originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan
|> >was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for
|> >deceleration.
|> 
|> 
|> I should probably re-post this with another title, so that
|> the guys on the other thread would see that this is a practical
|> use of "temporary orbits..."
|> 
|> Another possible temporary orbit:
|> 
|> --
|> Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
|> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man
|> 
|> 

If you are really interested in these orbits and how they are obtained
you should try and find the following paper:

     Hiroshi Yamakawa, Jun'ichiro Kawaguchi, Nobuaki Ishii, 
     and Hiroki Matsuo, "A Numerical Study of Gravitational Capture
     Orbit in the Earth-Moon System," AAS-92-186, AAS/AIAA Spaceflight
     Mechanics Meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1992.

The references included in this paper are quite interesting also and 
include several that are specific to the HITEN mission itself. 

|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|
|                                 * _!!!!_ *                         |
| Steven Davis                   * /  \   \ *                        |
| daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov  *  (<o><o>)  *                       |  
|                               *  \>_db_</  *  McDonnell Douglas    |
|  - I don't represent           *   |vv|   *   Space Systems Company| 
|    anybody but myself. -        *  (__)  *    Houston Division     |
|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60880
From: jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

From article <C5owCB.n3p@world.std.com>, by tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker):
>>In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes...
>>>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected
>>>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might
>>>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but
> 
> Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered.
>    "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it"
> I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is.
> 
> tom


My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically
known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked
that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't
set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code
and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew
'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.

 - Jonathan



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60881
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: NASP

I have before me a pertinent report from the United States General
Accounting Office:

National Aero-Space Plane: Restructuring Future Research and Development
Efforts
December 1992
Report number GAO/NSIAD-93-71

In the back it lists the following related reports:

NASP: Key Issues Facing the Program (31 Mar 92) GAO/T-NSIAD-92-26

Aerospace Plane Technology: R&D Efforts in Japan and Australia
(4 Oct 91) GAO/NSIAD-92-5

Aerospace Plane Technology: R&D Efforts in Europe (25 July 91)
GAO/NSIAD-91-194

Aerospace Technology: Technical Data and Information on Foreign
Test Facilities (22 Jun 90) GAO/NSIAD-90-71FS

Investment in Foreign Aerospace Vehicle Research and Technological
Development Efforts (2 Aug 89) GAO/T-NSIAD-89-43

NASP: A Technology Development and Demonstration Program to Build
the X-30 (27 Apr 88) GAO/NSIAD-88-122


On the inside back cover, under "Ordering Information" it says

"The first copy of each GAO report is free.  . . .  Orders
may also be placed by calling (202)275-6241
"

Dani

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60882
From: jib@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov (J. I. Blackshear Jr.)
Subject: DSPSE (was Why Clementine?)

The SDIO has "contracted" with the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) to fly the Clementine Mission.  BTW we call it DSPSE (Deep Space Project Science Experiment).

The NRL is building the spacecraft, designing the detailed mission and doing the
integration and operations (with help from, JPL & Goddard & prob. some folks I
have left out...don't be mad).

I am on the TAMP (Trajectory Analysis & Mission Planning) team and am responsable
for the IV&V of the traj that Goddard/CSC are designing.

As for why SDIO is doing it, some of the reasons are:

   1)  the safety constraints are too tight to try to run the LIDAR in LEO

   2)  in LEO we don't get any new radiation data on the sensors, we will get
       that data on our 9 passages through the Van Allen (sp?) Belts

   3)  since we are going out there...why not piggy-back some general science

   4)  the intercept problem is a lot easied over LONG distances and LONG times

I am sure there are some things I have forgotten, and some I haven't been told
but, those are the reasons we all talk about.

-- 


                                             Jim Blackshear
                                             jib@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60883
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

> > Can these questions be answered for a previous
> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?

> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)
> p(au)          3.424346
> e              0.151899
> i              1.0988
> cap_omega(0) 243.5652
> W(0)         231.1607
> epoch       1977.04110

Thanks for the information!

I assume p is the semi-major axis and e the eccentricity.  The peri-
helion and aphelion are then given by p(1-e) and p(1+e), i.e., about
2.90 and 3.95 AU respectively.  For Jupiter, they are 4.95 and 5.45 AU.
If 1977 was after the temporary capture, this means that the comet
ended up in an orbit that comes no closer than 1 AU to Jupiter's --
which I take to be a rough indication of how far from Jupiter it could
get under Jupiter's influence.

> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
> 
> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto		"Remember the Golgafrinchans"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com					-- Pete Granger

This article is in the public domain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60884
From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks)
Subject: Re: Into Infinity?(WAS:Re: *Doppelganger* (was Re: Vulcan?)


In article <1993Apr18.171148.6367@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus 
Lindroos INF) writes:

>Later on, the Andersons tried to shed their reputation as creators of some
>of the worst pseudo-scientific shows in TV history by flying "Into Infinity."
>This was a one-off thing done as part of BBC's "educational SF" series "The
>Day After Tomorrow." The Anderson episode dealt with a spaceship capable of
>reaching the speed of light ("lightship Altares"), the four-man crew 
>eventually journeyed into a black hole and ended up on the far side of the 
>galaxy (I think). I saw this as a 9-year-old back in 1976 and liked it very 
>much, but then again I was a fan of SPACE:1999 so I guess I was easily 
>satisfied in those days:-)

Wow.  I was beginning to think that I had made that up.  I remember that
movie (it was about 1.5 hours long).  I don't think they ended up anywhere
in the known universe.  

I remember they got a message halfway out to Proxima Centauri, that Earth
transmitted a day after they launched, timed to catch up with them at the
halfway point.  I thought it was neat, I think I was all of 10 at the time.

>Does anyone know if "Into Infinity" has been released on video? I have some
>SPACE:1999 shows on VHS and know that Thunderbirds etc. also are available in
>England.
 
Space:1999 has just come out with 4 episodes released in American stores.
I will look for the Into Infinity show, I never did know that was the
name of it, I thought the show was called "the day after tomorrow", and
that was it.

-- 
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60885
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
that might just work.

Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60886
From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Subject: NAVSTAR positions

I've just read Richard Langley's latest "Navstar GPS Constellation Status".

It states that the latest satellite was placed in Orbit Plane Position C-3.
There is already one satellite in that position. I know that it's almost
ten years since that satellite was launched but it's still in operation so
why not use it until it goes off?

Why not instead place the new satellite at B-4 since that position is empty
and by this measure have an almost complete GPS-constellation
(23 out of 24)?

/Thomas
================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.     

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60887
From: uck@netcom.com (Tom Chamberlain)
Subject: Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space?

Has anyone heard of or Played Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space?

Does anyone know when it is expected to be released...?

Thanx, Tom.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60888
From: wmiler@nyx.cs.du.edu (Wyatt Miler)
Subject: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network Announcement


Posted to the Internet by wmiler@nyx.cs.du.edu
 
000062David42      041493003715
 
             The Lunar Tele-operation Model One (LTM1)
             =========================================
                        By David H. Mitchell
                          March 23, 1993
 
INTRODUCTION:
 
In order to increase public interest in space-based and lunar operations, a
real miniature lunar-like environment is being constructed on which to test
tele-operated models. These models are remotely-controlled by individuals
located world-wide using their personal computers, for EduTainment
purposes.
Not only does this provide a test-bed for simple tele-operation and
tele-presence activities but it also provides for the sharing of
information
on methods of operating in space, including, but not limited to, layout of
a
lunar colony, tele-operating machines for work and play, disseminating
educational information, providing contests and awards for creativity and
achievement and provides a new way for students worldwide to participate in
Twenty-First century remote learning methods.
 
Because of the nature of the LTM1 project, people of all ages, interests
and
skills can contribute scenery and murals, models and structures,
interfacing
and electronics, software and graphics. In operation LTM1 is an evolving
playground and laboratory that can be used by children, students and
professionals worldwide. Using a personal computer at home or a terminal at
a participating institution a user is able to tele-operate real models at
the
LTM1 base for experimental or recreational purposes. Because a real
facility
exists, ample opportunity is provided for media coverage of the
construction
of the lunar model, its operation and new features to be added as suggested
by the users themselves.
 
This has broad inherent interest for a wide range of groups:
 - tele-operations and virtual reality research
 - radio control, model railroad and ham radio operation
 - astronomy and space planetariums and science centers
 - art and theater
 - bbs and online network users
 - software and game developers
 - manufacturers and retailers of model rockets, cars and trains
 - children
 - the child in all of us
 
LTM1 OVERALL DESIGN:
 
A room 14 feet by 8 feet contains the base lunar layout. The walls are used
for murals of distant moon mountains, star fields and a view of the earth.
The "floor" is the simulated lunar surface. A global call for contributions
is hereby made for material for the lunar surface, and for the design and
creation of scale models of lunar colony elements, scenery, and
machine-lets.
 
 The LTM1 initial design has 3 tele-operated machinelets:
 1. An SSTO scale model which will be able to lift off, hover and land;
 2. A bulldozerlet which will be able to move about in a quarry area; and
 3. A moon-train which will traverse most of the simulated lunar surface.
 
 Each machinelet has a small TV camera utilizing a CCD TV chip mounted on
 it. A personal computer digitizes the image (including reducing picture
 content and doing data-compression to allow for minimal images to be sent
 to the operator for control purposes) and also return control signals.
 
The first machinelet to be set up will be the moon-train since model trains
with TV cameras built in are almost off-the-shelf items and control
electronics for starting and stopping a train are minimal. The user will
receive an image once every 1 to 4 seconds depending on the speed of their
data link to LTM1.
 
Next, an SSTO scale model with a CCD TV chip will be suspended from a
servo-motor operated wire frame mounted on the ceiling allowing for the
SSTO
to be controlled by the operator to take off, hover over the entire lunar
landscape and land.
 
Finally, some tank models will be modified to be CCD TV chip equipped
bulldozerlets. The entire initial LTM1 will allow remote operators
worldwide
to receive minimal images while actually operating models for landing and
takeoff, traveling and doing work. The entire system is based on
commercially
available items and parts that can be easily obtained except for the
interface electronics which is well within the capability of many advanced
ham radio operator and computer hardware/software developers.
 
By taking a graphically oriented communications program (Dmodem) and adding
a tele-operations screen and controls, the necessary user interface can be
provided in under 80 man hours.
 
PLAN OF ACTION:
 
The Diaspar Virtual Reality Network has agreed to sponsor this project by
providing a host computer network and Internet access to that network.
Diaspar is providing the 14 foot by 8 foot facility for actual construction
of the lunar model. Diaspar has, in stock, the electronic tanks that can be
modified and one CCD TV chip. Diaspar also agrees to provide "rail stock"
for the lunar train model. Diaspar will make available the Dmodem graphical
communications package and modify it for control of the machines-lets.
An initial "ground breaking" with miniature shovels will be performed for
a live photo-session and news conference on April 30, 1993. The initial
models will be put in place. A time-lapse record will be started for
historical purposes. It is not expected that this event will be completely
serious or solemn. The lunar colony will be declared open for additional
building, operations and experiments. A photographer will be present and
the photographs taken will be converted to .gif images for distribution
world-wide to major online networks and bbs's. A press release will be
issued
calling for contributions of ideas, time, talent, materials and scale
models
for the simulated lunar colony.
 
A contest for new designs and techniques for working on the moon will then
be
announced. Universities will be invited to participate, the goal being to
find instructors who wish to have class participation in various aspects of
the lunar colony model. Field trips to LTM1 can be arranged and at that
time
the results of the class work will be added to the model. Contributors will
then be able to tele-operate any contributed machine-lets once they return
to
their campus.
 
A monthly LTM1 newsletter will be issued both electronically online and via
conventional means to the media. Any major new tele-operated equipment
addition will be marked with an invitation to the television news media.
Having a large, real model space colony will be a very attractive photo
opportunity for the television community. Especially since the "action"
will
be controlled by people all over the world. Science fiction writers will be
invited to issue "challenges" to engineering and human factors students at
universities to build and operate the tele-operated equipment to perform
lunar tasks. Using counter-weight and pulley systems, 1/6 gravity may be
simulated to some extent to try various traction challenges.
 
The long term goal is creating world-wide interest, education,
experimentation
and remote operation of a lunar colony. LTM1 has the potential of being a
long
term global EduTainment method for space activities and may be the generic
example of how to teach and explore in many other subject areas not limited
to space EduTainment. All of this facilitates the kind of spirit which can
lead to a generation of people who are ready for the leap to the stars!
 
CONCLUSION:
 
EduTainment is the blending of education and entertainment. Anyone who has
ever enjoyed seeing miniatures will probably see the potential impact of a
globally available layout for recreation, education and experimentation
purposes. By creating a tele-operated model lunar colony we not only create
world-wide publicity, but also a method of trying new ideas that require
real
(not virtual) skills and open a new method for putting people's minds in
space.
 
 
MOONLIGHTERS:
 
"Illuminating the path of knowledge about space and lunar development."
The following people are already engaged in various parts of this work:
David42, Rob47, Dash, Hyson, Jzer0, Vril, Wyatt, The Dark One, Tiggertoo,
The Mad Hatter, Sir Robin, Jogden.
 
Come join the discussion any Friday night from 10:30 to midnight PST in
 
Diaspar Virtual Reality Network. Ideas welcome!
 
Internet telnet to: 192.215.11.1 or diaspar.com
 
(voice)  714-376-1776
(2400bd) 714-376-1200
(9600bd) 714-376-1234
 
Email inquiries to LTM1 project leader Jzer@Hydra.unm.edu
or directly to Jzer0 on Diaspar.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60889
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

I've seen a film of it, my memory may be faulty, but as I
remember it the vehicle was slightly over a meter long, with a
thick baseplate 30-40 cm in diameter. I think the narrative said
it was propelled by dynamite sticks. There were four detonations
within about 2 s, the second coming after about 2 m of flight in.
Max altitude seemed to be on the order of 50 m, but that is hard 
to judge.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60890
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> > Can these questions be answered for a previous
>> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?
> 
>> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)
>> p(au)          3.424346
>> e              0.151899
>> i              1.0988
>> cap_omega(0) 243.5652
>> W(0)         231.1607
>> epoch       1977.04110
> 
> 
>> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
>> 
>> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
> 
> Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> -- 
Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60891
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Orbital RepairStation

In article <C5HCBo.Joy@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The biggest problem with this is that all orbits are not alike.  It can
>actually be more expensive to reach a satellite from another orbit than
>from the ground.  

But with cheaper fuel from space based sources it will be cheaper to 
reach more orbits than from the ground.

Also remember, that the presence of a repair/supply facility adds value
to the space around it. If you can put your satellite in an orbit where it
can be reached by a ready source of supply you can make it cheaper and gain
benefit from economies of scale.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60892
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: NASA "Wraps"

In article <1993Apr18.034101.21934@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>>I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
>>line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
>>wrap at this university. 
> 
>Dennis, I have worked on or written proposals worth tens of millions
>of $$. Customers included government (including NASA), for profit and
>non-profit companies. All expected a wrap (usually called a fee). Much
>of the work involved allocating and costing the work of subcontractors.
>The subcontractors where universities, for-profits, non-profits, and
>even some of the NASA Centers for the Commercialization of Space. ALL
>charged fees as part of the work. Down the street is one of the NASA
>commercialization centers; they charge a fee.
> 

You totally forgot the original post that you posted Allen. In that post
you stated that the "wrap" was on top of and in addition to any overhead.
Geez in this post you finally admit that this is not true.

>Now, I'm sure your a competent engineer Dennis, but you clearly lack
>experience in several areas. Your posts show that you don't understand
>the importance of integration in large projects. You also show a lack
>of understanding of costing efforts as shown by your belief that it
>is reasonable to charge incremental costs for everything. This isn't
>a flame, jsut a statement.

Come your little ol buns down here and you will find out who is doing
what and who is working on integration. This is simply an ad hominum
attack and you know it.

> 
>Your employer DOES charge a fee. You may not see it but you do.
>

Of course there is a fee. It is for administration. Geez Allen any
organization has costs but there is a heck of a difference in  legitimate
costs, such as libraries and other things that must be there to support
a program and "wrap" as you originally stated it.You stated that wrap
was on top of all of the overhead which a couple of sentences down you
say is not true. Which is it Allen?

>>>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>>>costing people how much fee they add to a project.
> 
>>I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
>>any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.
> 
>Well there you are Dennis. As I said, they simply include the fee in
>their overhead. Many seoparate the fee since the fee structure can
>change depending on the customer.
>

As you have posted on this subject Allen, you state that wrap is over and
above overhead and is a seperate charge. You admit here that this is wrong.
Nasa has a line item budget every year. I have seen it Allen. Get some
numbers from that detailed NASA budget and dig out the wrap numbers and then
howl to high heaven about it. Until you do that you are barking in the wind.

>>No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
>>of the Overhead capital of NASA. 
> 
>Integration, Dennis, isn't overhead.
> 
>>Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
>>better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.
>

Integration could be done better at the centers. Apollo integration was 
done here at Msfc and that did not turn out so bad. The philosophy of
Reston is totally wrong Allen. There you have a bunch of people who are
completely removed from the work that they are trying to oversee. There
is no way that will ever work. It has never worked in any large scale project
that it was ever tried on. Could you imagine a Reston like set up for 
Apollo?

>Dennis, Reston has been the only NASA agency working to reduce costs. When
>WP 02 was hemoraging out a billion $$, the centers you love so much where
>doing their best to cover it up and ignore the problem. Reston was the
>only place you would find people actually interested in solving the
>problems and building a station.
>

Oh you are full of it Allen on this one. I agree that JSC screwed up big.
They should be responsible for that screw up and the people that caused it
replaced. To make a stupid statement like that just shows how deep your
bias goes. Come to MSFC for a couple of weeks and you will find out just
how wrong you really are. Maybe not, people like you believe exactly what
they want to believe no matter  what the facts are contrary to it. 

>>Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
>>at a place where everything is overhead.
> 
>When you have a bit more experience Dennis, you will realize that
>integration isn't overhead. It is the single most important part
>of a successful large scale effort.
>

I agree that integration is the single most important part of a  successful
large scale effort. What I completly disagree with is seperating that
integration function from  the people that are doing the work. It is called
leadership Allen. That is what made Apollo work. Final responsibility for
the success of Apollo was held by less than 50 people. That is leadership
and responsibility. There is neither when you have any organization set up
as Reston is. You could take the same people and move them to JSC or MSFC
and they could do a much better job. Why did it take a year for Reston to
finally say something about the problem? If they were on site and part of the
process then the problem would have never gotten out of hand in the first place.

There is one heck of a lot I do not know Allen, but one thing I do know is that
for a project to be successful you must have leadership. I remember all of the
turn over at Reston that kept SSF program in shambles for years do you? It is
lack of responsibility and leadership that is the programs problem. Lack of
leadership from the White House, Congress and at Reston. Nasa is only a
symptom of a greater national problem. You are so narrowly focused in your
efforts that you do not see this.

>>Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
>>demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being 
>>selective with the facts again.
> 
>The story you refer to said that some NASA people blamed it on
>Congress. Suprise suprise. The fact remains that it is the centers
>you support so much who covered up the overheads and wouldn't address
>the problems until the press published the story.
> 
>Are you saying the Reston managers where wrong to get NASA to address
>the overruns? You approve of what the centers did to cover up the overruns?
>

No, I am saying that if they were located at JSC it never would have 
happened in the first place.

>>If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
>>of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
>>"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
>>for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a 
>>blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.
> 
>You should know Dennis that NASA doesn't include transport costs for
>resuply. That comes from the Shuttle budget. What they where saying
>is that operational costs could be cut in half plus transport.
> 
>>Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
>>to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
>>do so.
> 
>I do hope you can find the time to tell us just why it was wrong of
>Reston to ask that the problems with WP 02 be addressed.
> 
I have the time to reitereate one more timet that if the leadership that is
at reston was on site at JSC the problem never would have happened, totally
ignoring the lack of leadership of congress. This many headed hydra that
has grown up at NASA is the true problem of the Agency and to try to 
change the question to suit you and your bias is only indicative of
your position.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60893
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In <1q1kia$gg8@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>In article <19930408.043740.516@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>In <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.
>It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more
>then a science project.
  Bingo.
>B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to
>re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?
 Nothing evil at all. There's no actual harm in what they're doing, only
how they represent it.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60894
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In <1q77ku$av6@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
>The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
>either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
>not releasing data.
   We publish plenty kiddo,you just have to look.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60895
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)

In article <1993Apr15.131954.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers...
>Sorry, Mark.

I think I can. Largely as a result of efforts by people reading this group
writing letters and making phone calls the following has happened:

1. NASA reprogrammed funds to keep NASP alive in 1991.
2. Efforts to kill DC-X and the SSRT progam where twice twarted
   (Feb. and June of last year).
3. Gouldin kept his job in spite of heavy lobbying against him.

This may not be what Mark was thinking of but it shows that the
readers of sci.space DO have power and influence.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60896
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Re: Astronomy Program

In article <28641@galaxy.ucr.edu> datadec@ucrengr.ucr.edu 
(kevin marcus) writes:

>Are there any public domain or shareware astronomy programs which will
>map out the sky at any given time, and allow you to locate planets, nebulae,
>and so forth?  If so, is there any ftp site where I can get one?


   There are several star map programs available.  Your
   job is to choose that you like.  Try anonymous-FTP
   from:

	ftp.funet.fi:pub/astro/pc/stars
			       pc/solar
                               mac
			       amiga
			       atari
   
					regards,
					-Veikko-	

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60897
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

   >This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought not
   >to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
   >think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
   >
   >Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
   >larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
   >they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.

Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
cooperation.

Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
the size of that multiplier :->).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60898
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Question

In article <1993Apr18.224414.784@head-cfa.harvard.edu> jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:

   My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically
   known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked
   that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't
   set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code
   and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew
   'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.

Good grief. And I thought the Shuttle software was known for being
well-engineered. If this is actually the case, every member of the
programming team should be taken out and shot.

(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
maturity, I strongly doubt that this is the case).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60899
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

Gene Wright (gene@theporch.raider.net) wrote:
: Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
: who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
: Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
: to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I
throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that
you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion.

This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which 
should be one of NASA's primary goals.

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

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60900
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr18.014305.28536@sfu.ca>, Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
> In article <C5nGxq.663@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer,
> henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:
> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
> >the film continuously repeating.
> 
> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
> month with my wife, who was also working at General Atomic at the time.
> Once again netnews has enriched my life.

Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
would have caught my attention instantly.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60901
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Vast Bandwidth Over-runs on NASA thread (was Re: NASA "Wraps")

In article <18APR199313560620@judy.uh.edu>, Dennis writes about a
zillion lines in response to article <1993Apr18.034101.21934@iti.org>,
in which Allen wrote a zillion lines in response to article
<17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu>, in which Dennis wrote another zillion
lines in response to Allen.

Hey, can it you guys. Take it to email, or talk.politics.space, or
alt.flame, or alt.music.pop.will.eat.itself.the.poppies.are.on.patrol,
or anywhere, but this is sci.space. This thread lost all scientific
content many moons ago.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60902
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1quh78INNf45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
>> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display...
>> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
>> month...
>
>Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
>it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
>but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
>would have caught my attention instantly.

It wasn't especially prominent, as I recall.  However, quite possibly it's
no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60903
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City


AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

Anyone want to go?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60904
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Space Clippers launched



>  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY

When I first saw this, I thought for a second that it was a headline from
The Star about the pliers found in the SRB recently.

Y'know, sometimes they have wire-cutters built in :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60905
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            April 16, 1993

1.  The Magellan mission at Venus continues normally, gathering gravity
data which provides measurement of density variations in the upper
mantle which can be correlated to surface topography.  Spacecraft
performance is nominal.

2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from
the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.

3.  No significant activities are expected next week, as preparations
for aerobraking continue on schedule.

4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60906
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Space class for teachers near Chicago

I am posting this for a friend without internet access. Please inquire
to the phone number and address listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier"
Sponsored by the Planetary Studies Foundation

The Planetary Studies Foundation is sponsoring a one week class for
teachers called "Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier." The class will be
held at the Sheraton Suites in Elk Grove, Illinois from June 14 through
June 18. Participants who complete the program can earn two semester
hours of graduate credit from Aurora College. Please note that while the
class is intended for teachers, it is not restricted to teachers.

The class, which is being cosponsored by the United States Space
Foundation, will teach how to use space exploration as a teaching tool
to get students excited about learning and interested in science.

Classroom topics to be covered by the class include:
     > Living in Space
     > The Space Shuttle
     > The Space Station
     > NASA Spinoffs that Benefit Society
     > Principles of Astrodynamics/Aeronautics
     > The Solar System

There will also be simulated Zero-G training in an underwater space
station simulation, model rocket launches, observing sessions at the
Harper College Observatory, and field trips to the Adler Planetarium and
the Museum of Science and Industry.

Featured speakers include Jerry Brown of the Colorado based United
States Space Foundation and Debbie Brown of the NASA Lewis Research
Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Additional instructors will be provided by
the Planetary Studies Foundation.

The social highlight of the class will be a dinner banquet featuring
Space Shuttle Payload Specialist Byron Lichtenberg, currently President
of Payload Systems, Inc. Lichtenberg was a member of the crew of STS-9
which flew in November 1983. The banquet is scheduled for Thursday, June
17.

The registration fee includes transportation for field trips, materials,
continental breakfasts, lunches, and the special dinner banquet. Guest
tickets for the dinner banquet are also available.  There is an
additional charge to receive the two hours of graduate credit. For any
additional information about the class, contact the Science Learning
Center at (708) 359-7913.

Or write to:
Planetary Studies Foundation
1520 W. Algonquin Rd.
Palatine, IL 60067

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60907
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Soviet space book

     I have received my copies of Cosmonautics 1990 and
Cosmonautics 1991, as well as Soviet Space 1990 and Space
Station [MIR] Handbook from Aerospace Ambassadors with no
problem.
     I'm getting ready to FAX them some material in Huntsville,
and I'll include a printout of your inquiry.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |  
| Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60908
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Space on other nets

   We run "SpaceNews & Views" on our STAREACH BBS, a local
operation running WWIV software with the capability to link to
over 1500 other BBS's in the U.S.A. and Canada through WWIVNet.
   Having just started this a couple of months ago, our sub us
currently subscribed by only about ten other boards, but more
are being added.
   We get our news articles re on Internet, via ftp from NASA
sites, and from a variety of aerospace related periodicals. We
get a fair amount of questions on space topics from students
who access the system.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |  
| Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60909
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
> With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
> by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
> that might just work.
> 
> Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
> who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
> to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
> 
> --
>   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
> theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
====
If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
in Australia..
Anybody game for a contest!

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60910
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr19.144427.17399@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> Gene Wright (gene@theporch.raider.net) wrote:
> : Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
> : who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> : Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
> : to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
> 
> I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I
> throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that
> you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion.
> 
> This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which 
> should be one of NASA's primary goals.
> 
> -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
> 
>      "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator


Also would maybe get the Russians Involved. After all they do have the resources
to do it in part.. But they need the capital and the goal..

I wonder if renting the russians resources would be a disqualification?


==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60911
From: claice@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Farmer Ted)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

> There is this buy at NASA Langley...




YES! Give me his name I would greatly appreciate it.



Rich

"The Earth is a cradle of the mind.  But, we cannot live forever in a cradle"
                         K.E. Tsiolkovski 
			 Father of Russian Astronautics

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60912
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:


>AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
>May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

>Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

>Anyone want to go?

>pat

I got something in the mail from AIAA about it.  Cost is $75.
Speakers include John Pike, Hohn Young, and Ian Pryke.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60913
From: daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

In article <1quule$5re@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|> 
|> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
|> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.
|> 
|> Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????
|> 
|> Anyone want to go?
|> 
|> pat

Here are some selected excerpts of the invitation/registration form they
sent me. Retyped without permission, all typo's are mine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Cost Lunar Access: A one-day conference to explore the means and 
benefits of a rejuvenated human lunar program.

Friday, May 7, 1993
Hyatt Regency - Crystal City Hotel
Arlington, VA

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE
The Low-Cost Lunar Access conference will be a forum for the exchange of
ideas on how to initiate and structure an affordable human lunar program.
Inherent in such low-cost programs is the principle that they be 
implemented rapidly and meet their objectives within a short time
frame.

[more deleted]

CONFERENCE PROGRAM (Preliminary)

In the Washington Room:

  9:00 - 9:10 a.m.     Opening Remarks
    Dr. Alan M. Lovelace

  9:10 - 9:30 a.m.     Keynote Address
    Mr. Brian Dailey

  9:30 - 10:00 a.m.    U.S. Policy Outlook
    John Pike, American Federation of Scientists

  A discussion of the prospects for the introduction of a new low-cost
  lunar initiative in view of the uncertain direction the space
  program is taking.

  10:00 - 12:00 noon   Morning Plenary Sessions

  Presentations on architectures, systems, and operational concepts.
  Emphasis will be on mission approaches that produce significant
  advancements beyond Apollo yet are judged to be affordable in the
  present era of severely constrained budgets


In the Potomac Room

  12:00 - 1:30 p.m.    Lunch
    Guest Speaker: Mr. John W. Young,
    NASA Special Assistant and former astronaut

In the Washington Room

  1:30 - 2:00 p.m.     International Policy Outlook
    Ian Pryke (invited)
    ESA, Washington Office

  The prevailing situation with respect to international space 
  commitments, with insights into preconditions for European 
  entry into new agreements, as would be required for a cooperative
  lunar program.

  2:00 - 3:30 p.m.     Afternoon Plenary Sessions

  Presentations on scientific objectives, benefits, and applications.
  Emphasis will be placed on the scientific and technological value
  of a lunar program and its timeliness.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a registration form and the fee is US$75.00. The mail address
is 

     American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
     Dept. No. 0018
     Washington, DC 20073-0018

and the FAX No. is: 

     (202) 646-7508

or it says you can register on-site during the AIAA annual meeting 
and on Friday morning, May 7, from 7:30-10:30


Sounds interesting. Too bad I can't go.

|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|
|                                 * _!!!!_ *                         |
| Steven Davis                   * /  \   \ *                        |
| daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov  *  (<o><o>)  *                       |  
|                               *  \>_db_</  *  McDonnell Douglas    |
|  - I don't represent           *   |vv|   *   Space Systems Company| 
|    anybody but myself. -        *  (__)  *    Houston Division     |
|--------------------------------- ******** -------------------------|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60914
From: xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Space Station radio commercial

A brief political/cultural item.

Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with
a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).  
Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond
jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines.

This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project.
Didn't catch the advertiser.

Guess they're pulling out all the stops.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60915
From: xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Science News article on Federal R&D

Just a pointer to the article in the current Science News article
on Federal R&D funding.

Very briefly, all R&D is being shifted to gaining current 
competitive advantage from things like military and other work that
does not have as much commercial utility.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60916
From: schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1993Apr19.130503.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
|> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
|> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
|> > that might just work.
|> > 
|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
|> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
|> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
|> > 
|> > --
|> >   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
|> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
|> ====
|> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
|> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
|> in Australia..
|> Anybody game for a contest!
|> 
|> ==
|> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!

Peter F. Schaefer

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60917
From: fleice_mike@tandem.com (Mike Fleice)
Subject: Last call: S/W wizard position at Tandem (Cupertino CA)

Well, we got some responses and are doing some interviews with interesting
responders. However, just in case the other posting was overlooked by an
incredibly talented person ... Mea Culpa for posting this here for Mike,
but we're looking for someone special:

   Tandem Computers is currently looking for a software wizard to help
 us architect & implement a fault-tolerant generalized instrumentation
 subsystem as part of our proprietary operating system kernel (TNS
 Kernel). The TNS Kernel is a proprietary, loosely-coupled parallel,
 message-based operating system. The TNS Kernel has wide connectivity
 to open standards.
   In this key individual contributor role, you will work with other
 developers working on various components of the Transaction Management
 Facility.
   Your background needs to encompass some of the following 4 categories
 (3 of 4 would be excellent):
   Category 1. Math: Working knowledge of statistics, real analysis, as
 used in experimental physics or chemistry, or in engineering.
   Category 2. Working knowledge of telemetry issues-- i.e. time series,
 autocorrelation, and statistical correlation of data streams.
   Category 3. Integration & Test -- Instrumentation of systems under test,
 i.e. payloads, flight modules, etc.
   Category 4: Software Engineering: programming skills, algorithms, and
 systems software techniques.

   Please send your resume to Mike Fleice, Tandem Computers 10555
 Ridgeview Ct., LOC 100-27, Cupertino, CA 95014-0789; Fax (408) 285-0813;
 or e-mail fleice_mike@tandem.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60918
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:
> In article <1quule$5re@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> |> 
> |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.
> |> 
> |> Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????
> Here are some selected excerpts of the invitation/registration form they
> sent me. Retyped without permission, all typo's are mine.

Thanks for typing that in, Steven.  Sounds like a "fall back and
regroup" strategy session.

I wanted to add that my copy of the brochure arrived with a flattering
cover letter:

"Invitations are being extended to those who have demonstrated a
strong committment to space program development and have been
influential in its advancement.  We sincerely hope you will be able to
attend."

Wow! I wonder which of my contributions to the conquest of space
convinced them to send me this letter?

I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes and ears
there...

Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
higgins@fnal.fnal.gov |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
higgins@fnal.Bitnet   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60919
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Science News article on Federal R&D

In article <C5r2DK.764@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
> Just a pointer to the article in the current Science News article
> on Federal R&D funding.
> 
> Very briefly, all R&D is being shifted to gaining current 
> competitive advantage from things like military and other work that
> does not have as much commercial utility.
> -- 
> Chuck Divine

Gulp.

[Disclaimer:  This opinion is mine and does not represent the views of
Fermilab, Universities Research Association, the Department of Energy,
or the 49th Ward Regular Science Fiction Organization.]
 
-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60920
From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

> Keesler, Loftus, Potter, Stansbery, Kubriek....?

I gues it is Keesler. The others do not ring the bell but they might be 
involved as well. Sometime ago Keesler was here at Langley teaching 
a course on space debris and, if my memory does not fai,l I think there
was even a reference to a book on the subject.

C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60921
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Cold Gas tanks for Sounding Rockets

In article <3918@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rdl1@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Lorenz) writes:
   >Does anyone know how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks
   >for sounding rockets?

   Well, first you work out how much cold gas you need, then make the
   tanks big enough.

Our sounding rocket payload, with telemetry, guidance, etc. etc. and a
telescope cluster, weighs around 1100 pounds.  It uses freon jets for
steering and a pulse-width-modulated controller for alignment (ie
during our eight minutes in space, the jets are pretty much
continuously firing on a ~10% duty cycle or so...).  The jets also
need to kill residual angular momentum from the spin stabilization, and
flip the payload around to look at the Sun.

We have two freon tanks, each holding ~5 liters of freon (I'm speaking
only from memory of the last flight).  The ground crew at WSMR choose how
much freon to use based on some black-magic algorithm.  They have
extra tank modules that just bolt into the payload stack.

This should give you an idea of the order of magnitude for cold gas 
quantity.  If you really need to know, send me email and I'll try to get you
in touch with our ground crew people.

Cheers,
Craig

--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60922
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Stereo Pix of planets?

Can anyone tell me where I might find stereo images of planetary and
planetary satellite surfaces?  GIFs preferred, but any will do.  I'm
especially interested in stereos of the surfaces of Phobos, Deimos, Mars
and the Moon (in that order).
  Thanks. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60923
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:

   Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
   who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a
   year. 

And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly
likely to involve more than just the lunar environment! 

"Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they
all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents."

"Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've
got a tank!  Man the guns!"

One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that
sort of environment.....

Greg.

(I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is
that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness
military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a
reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk
proposition.)


--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60924
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
>May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

>Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

A good summary has been posted (thanks), but I wanted to add another comment.
I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
Anyone else know anything on this angle?

Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60925
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

In article <19930419.062802.166@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
|In <1q77ku$av6@access.digex.net> Pat writes:
|>The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
|>either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
|>not releasing data.
|   We publish plenty kiddo,you just have to look.


Never said you didn't publish, merely that there is data you don't
publish,  and that no-one scoriates you for those cases.  

IBM research  publishes plenty, it's why you ended up  with 2 Nobel
prizes in the last 10 years,  but that some projects are deemed
company confidential.  ATT Bell Labs,  keeps lots of stuff private,
Like Karamankars algorithm.  Private moeny is entitled to do what
it pleases, within the bounds of Law,  and For all the keepers of the
temple of SCience,  should please shove their pointy little heads
up their Conically shaped Posterior Orifices.   

pat

	who just read the SA article on Karl Fehrabend(sp???)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60926
From: jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch)
Subject: *** HELP  I NEED SOME ADDRESSES ***


Hi all,

    I'm trying to get mailing addresses for the following
companies.  Specifically, I need addresses for their personnel
offices or like bureau.  The companies are:

	- AMROC
	- Orbital Sciences Corp. (sp?)
	- Spacehab, Inc.  (I know this one is somewhere in 
		 	   Seattle, WA, or at least part of it is.)
	- Space Industries, Inc.  (Somewhere in Houston)
	- Space Enterprises Inc.

If anybody could point me in the right direction on this, I
would be most appreciative.  I prefer an email response, but I
will post a summary if sufficient interest exists.

Thanks,

Mitch-------------------------------->jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60927
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1993Apr20.001757.7543@bby.com.au>, gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
> 
>>    Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>>    who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a
>>    year. 
> 
> And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly
> likely to involve more than just the lunar environment! 
> 
> "Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they
> all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents."
> 
> "Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've
> got a tank!  Man the guns!"
> 
> One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that
> sort of environment.....
> 
> Greg.
> 
> (I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is
> that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness
> military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a
> reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk
> proposition.)
> -
> Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia

Hey!  My dad has an old hangar and Judy has some old rockets in her attic,
let's put on a Lunar program! . . .  Sounds good, but . . .
Let's play a game - What would be a reasonable reward?  What companies would
have a reasonable shot at pulling off such a feat?  Just where in the
budget would the reward come from?  Should there be a time limit?  Would a
straight cash money award be enough or should we throw in say . . . 
exclusive mining rights for the first fifty years? You get the idea.

I'd like to play but I don't have a clue to the answers.

Tom Freebairn   | He who refuses to understand math
                | will probably never get his checkbook figured out.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60928
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Double sonic booms.

Every time you read about a shuttle landing they mention the double sonic  
booms.  Having taken various relevant classes, I have several ideas of where  
they come from, but none of them are very convincing.  Exactly what causes  
them?  Are they a one time pheneomenon, or a constant one like the supersonic  
shockwave that is constantly produced by a plane, but you hear only when it  
goes over you?

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60929
From: jhwitten@cs.ruu.nl (Jurriaan Wittenberg)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov 
(Ron Baalke) writes:

>Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager
>
>                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
>                            April 16, 1993
>
>
>2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from
>the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.
Sorry I think I missed a bit of info on this Transition Experiment. What is it?

>4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
>interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.
Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??

BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am
looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something
to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)

ok that's it for now. See you guys around,
Jurriaan.
 
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|----=|=-<- - - - - - JHWITTEN@CS.RUU.NL- - - - - - - - - - - - ->-=|=----|
|----=|=-<-Jurriaan Wittenberg- - -Department of ComputerScience->-=|=----|
|____/|\_________Utrecht_________________The Netherlands___________/|\____|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60930
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: Looking for a little research help


Hi,
  
  I'm writing a science fiction script and I'm looking for some
answers to questions regarding the Moon and Earth. My starting point
is an impossible situation.  [I checked with a professor at berkeley
and his response was a VERY helpful "can't happen".] If you enjoy
playing with unusual ideas and are willing answer some questions
please contact me via e-mail (jennise@dgi.com).

  I get extremely annoyed when screen and tele-plays ignore basic
facts about computers that I'm determined to be as scientifically
accurate as I can.


  Sorry for being vague, but I'd like to protect my idea as much as I
can until I'm ready to sell it (hopefully).

Jennise

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60931
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: Looking for a little research help [ addendum]

Sorry but I forgot this ps.

Right now my sight is getting news about two weeks behind so it's 
kind of necessary (to me) that any responses be sent to me directly.


Thanks a lot

Jennise
     jennise@dgi.com  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60932
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Ariane v.56 Mission Data



ARIANESPACE FLIGHT 56

(Flight V.56 was originally intended to carry the Hughes HS-601 series 
Galaxy IV satellite, but the payload was withdrawn just prior to flight.)

The 56th Ariane launch is now scheduled to place the ASTRA 1C and ARSENE 
satellites into an improved geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), with 
inclination reduced to 5 degrees and apogee altitude increased by 150 km.
This will be the 28th launch of an Ariane 4 and the first in the 42L 
configuration, with 2 liquid strap-on boosters (PAL).  It will be launched
from the newly refurbished Ariane launch complex ELA 2, in Kourou - French 
Guiana.

The launch vehicle performance requirement for this mission is 3,147 kg
of which 2,944 kg represents the satellite mass.  The total vehicle mass
at liftoff is 361,778 kg.


Required Orbit Characteristics:
  Perigee Altitude ..... 200 km
  Apogee Altitude ...... 36,160 km at injection 
  Inclination ..........   5 degrees


The Ariane 42L lift-off for Flight 56 is scheduled on Thursday,
April 29, 1993, as soon as possible within the following launch 
window:

     Kourou Time        GMT (04/30/93)      Washington, DC
     21:52 - 22:50      00:52 - 01:50       20:52 - 21:50


LAUNCH VEHICLE:

Ariane 42L.  This is a three-stage liquid fueled launcher with two liquid 
fueled strap-on boosters.  The first stage (L220) is built by Aerospatiale,
and is powered by 4 liquid fueled Viking V engines.  The second stage (L33)
is built by MBB Erno and is powered by a single Viking IV engine.  Both the
Viking IV and V engines are manufactured by SEP.  The first and second stages
use a biliquid UH25/N2O4 fuel. The third stage (H10) is built by Aerospatiale,
and is powered by a cryogenic H2/O2 fueled HM-7B engine built by SEP. The two
strap-on boosters (PAL) are each powered by a Viking VI engine, also built 
by SEP, which use the same biliquid fuel as the first and second stages.  
The fully assembled launch vehicle stands 56 meters high on the pad.  
It uses the Type 01 Ariane Short payload fairing.


Flight Profile:

 +02:21  Liquid strap-on booster jettison
 +03:11  First stage separation
 +03:18  Second stage ignition
 +04:10  Fairing jettison
 +05:21  Second stage separation
 +05:26  Third stage ignition
 +17:30  Third stage shutdown / orbit injection
 +19:56  ASTRA 1C separation
 +22:36  Cyclade adapter separation
 +24:26  ARSENE separation
 +28:47  End of Ariane mission 56


PAYLOADS:

ASTRA 1C is the third spacecraft in the fleet of "Societe Europeenne
des Satellites" to broadcast direct TV to homes all over Europe.
Built by Hughes, it will be the second HS-601 launched by Ariane.

  Total mass at lift-off .... 2,790 kg
  Mass at GEO insertion ..... 1,700 kg
  Dry mass .................. 1,180 kg     
  On-board power ............ 3,300 W (end of life)
  Nominal lifetime .......... 15 years     
  Span of solar panels ...... 21 m
  On-Orbit position ......... 19.2 degrees east, over Africa.

 Transmission capacity:  
   34 channels in Ku-band, via 18 transponders.

 In-flight operations:
   Solar array deployment ............ about 6 days after lift-off
   First of 3 apogee motor firings ... about 40 hours after lift-off 
                                       at 4th apogee


ARSENE is the first spacecraft built by the European Space Industry
for the benefit of the world amateur radio community.  

  Total mass at lift-off .... 154 kg
  Mass at GEO insertion .....  98 kg
  Dry mass ..................  97 kg     
  On-board power ............ 42 W (end of life)
  Nominal lifetime .......... 3 years     
  Spacecraft dimensions ..... 1.1m x .96m
  Orbital parameters ........ 20000/36000 km, 0 inclination, period 17:30.

 Transmission capacity:  
   S-band:  1 transponder at 2.446 ghz
   VHF/UHF: 145/435 mhz 


LAUNCH COVERAGE:

All Ariane missions are broadcast live via satellite from Kourou. 
Coverage begins at 30 minutes before launch and continues until 
all payloads have been deployed.  This mission will likely be carried
in the US on Galaxy 6, however it could be Galaxy 7 or another satellite.
(What is the European satellite normally used for Ariane coverage?)
 

-{ Dean Adams }-


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60933
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Stereo Pix of planets?y

In article <1993Apr20.010326.8634@csus.edu>, arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler) writes:
> Can anyone tell me where I might find stereo images of planetary and
> planetary satellite surfaces?  GIFs preferred, but any will do.  I'm
> especially interested in stereos of the surfaces of Phobos, Deimos, Mars
> and the Moon (in that order).
>   Thanks. 


ames.arc.nasa.gov not sure what subdirectory thou..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

PS: I know it has a GIF area as well as SPACE and other info..


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60934
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In <1993Apr20.001428.724@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>Let's play a game - What would be a reasonable reward?  What companies would
>have a reasonable shot at pulling off such a feat?  Just where in the
>budget would the reward come from?  Should there be a time limit?  Would a
>straight cash money award be enough or should we throw in say . . .
>exclusive mining rights for the first fifty years? You get the idea.
 A cash award is OK. A time limit would be nice. You can't give away
mining rights (assuming there's anything to mine) because you don't own
them.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or
                  nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60935
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu> schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:

>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 

>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!

Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
more than needed.

This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60936
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?

I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes"
such as the following:

Large Corp.
Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?)
Large Government (GNP and such)
Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?)
Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?)
Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)

The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ??

Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ??
Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class
winners..
More fair?

There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events,
umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want
to risk thier own lives let them do it?).

Any other ideas??
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60937
From: rick@trystro.uucp (Richard Nickle)
Subject: Re: How to read sci.space without netnews

In article <C5LJG5.17n.1@cs.cmu.edu> mwm+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Maimone) writes:
>In article <734975852.F00001@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes:
>>If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space,
>>but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet
>>feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.	
>
>	Kudos to Mark for his generous offer, but there already exists a
>large (email-based) forwarding system for sci.space posts:  Space Digest.
>It mirrors sci.space exactly, and provides simple two-way communication.
>
I think Mark was talking about making it available to people who didn't
have email in the first place.

If anybody in the Boston area wants a sci.space feed by honest-to-gosh UUCP
(no weird offline malreaders), let me know.  I'll also hand out logins to
anyone who wants one, especially the Boston Chapter of NSS (which I keep forgetting
to re-attend).

>Questions, comments to space-request@isu.isunet.edu
>-- 
>Mark Maimone				phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
>Carnegie Mellon Computer Science	email: mwm@cmu.edu


-- 
richard nickle		rick@trystro.uucp	617-625-7155 v.32/v.42bis
			think!trystro!rick	somerville massachusetts

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60938
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
says:
>In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon
><SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought
>>not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
>>think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
>>Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
>>larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
>>they will simply be able to afford more stuff.
>
>If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
>economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste*
>on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
>but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military,
>scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have
>the money, why not?" approach.

I was assuming that there won't be a moon base unless it makes a
profit, actually.  If it does, well, that gives a larger GNP which
leads to being able to spend more money on your military, including
gosh-wow space stuff.  (assuming it's profitable, rather than paying
for itself.)
>
>It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
>that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
>Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
>years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
>levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
>put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
>use grad students?

You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.

Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
be significant commerical activity on the Moon?

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60939
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <schumach.734984753@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Would the sub-orbital version be suitable as-is (or "as-will-be") for use
>as a reuseable sounding rocket?

DC-X as is today isn't suitable for this. However, the followon SDIO
funds will. A reusable sounding rocket was always SDIO's goal.

>Thank Ghod! I had thought that Spacelifter would definitely be the
>bastard Son of NLS.

So did I. There is a lot going on now and some reports are due soon 
which should be very favorable. The insiders have been very bush briefing
the right people and it is now paying off.

However, public support is STILL critical. In politics you need to keep
constant pressure on elected officials.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60940
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X update???

In article <ugo62B8w165w@angus.mi.org> dragon@angus.mi.org writes:

>Exactly when will the hover test be done, 

Early to mid June.

>and will any of the TV
>networks carry it.  I really want to see that...

If they think the public wants to see it they will carry it. Why not
write them and ask? You can reach them at:


                          F: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA


ABC "World News Tonight"                 "Face the Nation"
7 West 66th Street                       CBS News
New York, NY 10023                       2020 M Street, NW
212/887-4040                             Washington, DC 20036
                                         202/457-4321

Associated Press                         "Good Morning America"
50 Rockefeller Plaza                     ABC News
New York, NY 10020                       1965 Broadway
National Desk (212/621-1600)             New York, NY 10023
Foreign Desk (212/621-1663)              212/496-4800
Washington Bureau (202/828-6400)
                                         Larry King Live TV
"CBS Evening News"                       CNN
524 W. 57th Street                       111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
New York, NY 10019                       Washington, DC 20001
212/975-3693                             202/898-7900

"CBS This Morning"                       Larry King Show--Radio
524 W. 57th Street                       Mutual Broadcasting
New York, NY 10019                       1755 So. Jefferson Davis Highway
212/975-2824                             Arlington, VA 22202
                                         703/685-2175
"Christian Science Monitor"
CSM Publishing Society                   "Los Angeles Times"
One Norway Street                        Times-Mirror Square
Boston, MA 02115                         Los Angeles, CA 90053
800/225-7090                             800/528-4637

CNN                                      "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
One CNN Center                           P.O. Box 2626
Box 105366                               Washington, DC 20013
Atlanta, GA 30348                        703/998-2870
404/827-1500
                                         "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
CNN                                      WNET-TV
Washington Bureau                        356 W. 58th Street
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW             New York, NY 10019
Washington, DC 20001                     212/560-3113
202/898-7900

"Crossfire"                              NBC News
CNN                                      4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW             Washington, DC 20036
Washington, DC 20001                     202/885-4200
202/898-7951                             202/362-2009 (fax)

"Morning Edition/All Things Considered"  
National Public Radio                    
2025 M Street, NW                        
Washington, DC 20036                     
202/822-2000                             

United Press International
1400 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202/898-8000

"New York Times"                         "U.S. News & World Report"
229 W. 43rd Street                       2400 N Street, NW
New York, NY 10036                       Washington, DC 20037
212/556-1234                             202/955-2000
212/556-7415

"New York Times"                         "USA Today"
Washington Bureau                        1000 Wilson Boulevard
1627 Eye Street, NW, 7th Floor           Arlington, VA 22229
Washington, DC 20006                     703/276-3400
202/862-0300

"Newsweek"                               "Wall Street Journal"
444 Madison Avenue                       200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10022                       New York, NY 10281
212/350-4000                             212/416-2000

"Nightline"                              "Washington Post"
ABC News                                 1150 15th Street, NW
47 W. 66th Street                        Washington, DC 20071
New York, NY 10023                       202/344-6000
212/887-4995

"Nightline"                              "Washington Week In Review"
Ted Koppel                               WETA-TV
ABC News                                 P.O. Box 2626
1717 DeSales, NW                         Washington, DC 20013
Washington, DC 20036                     703/998-2626
202/887-7364

"This Week With David Brinkley"
ABC News
1717 DeSales, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/887-7777

"Time" magazine
Time Warner, Inc.
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10020
212/522-1212

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60941
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Jemison on Star Trek

   I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
"Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.

Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60942
From: ldaddari@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Larry D'Addario)
Subject: Re: Russian Email Contacts.

It is usually possible to reach people at IKI (Institute for Space
Research) in Moscow by writing to

	IKIMAIL@esoc1.bitnet

This is a machine at ESA in Darmstadt, Germany; IKI has a dedicated
phone line to this machine and someone there logs in regularly to
retrieve mail.

In addition, there are several user accounts belonging to Russian
scientific institutions on

	<user>@sovam.com

which is a commercial enterprise based in San Francisco that provides
email services to the former USSR.  For example, fian@sovam.com is the
"PHysics Institute of the Academy of Sciences" (initials transliterated
from Russian, of course).  These connections cost the Russians real
dollars, even for *received* messages, so please don't send anything
voluminous or frivilous.

=====================================================================
Larry R. D'Addario
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Addresses   (INTERNET) LDADDARI@NRAO.EDU
	    (FAX)      +1/804/296-0324 Charlottesville
		       +1/304/456-2200 Green Bank
	    (MAIL)     2015 Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA
	    (PHONE)    +1/804/296-0245 office, 804/973-4983 home  CHO
		       +1/304/456-2226 off., -2106 lab, -2256 apt. GB
=====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60943
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Subject: message from Space Digest





Joint Press release ESA/UN No 18-93
Paris, 19 April 1993

UN/ESA joint training course on satellite applications
to be held in Italy, 19-30 April

The United Nations and the European Space Agency (ESA)
are jointly organising a training course on the applications of
satellite data gathered by the European Remote Sensing
Satellite (ERS-1), to be held in Frascati, Italy, from 19 to 30
April. The training course will discuss the applications of
satellite data concerning natural resources, renewable energy
and the environment.

The training course, organised for the benefit of francophone
African experts, will be hosted by ESRIN, the European Space
Agency's establishment in Frascati, which is responsible for
coordination with the users of data from ESA's remote sensing
satellite. Twenty-four experts in the field of remote sensing,
selected from 19 francophone countries from northern, western
and central Africa, and three regional African centres, will
attend the two-week session. The course will focus on remote
sensing techniques and data applications, particularly ERS-1
data.

The ERS-1 satellite, developed by ESA and launched in 1991
with the European Ariane launcher, carries an advanced radar
instrument and is the first in a series of radar remote sensing
missions that will ensure availability of data beyond the year
2000. The aim of the training course is to increase the
potential of experts using the practical applications of radar
remote sensing systems to natural resources, renewable energy
and the environment, with particular emphasis on applications
to geology and mineral prospecting, oceanography and near-
coastal areas, agriculture, forestry and meteorology.

The education and practical training programme was
developed jointly by the United Nations and ESA. The
facilities and the technical support, as well as lecturers and
information documents for the training course, will be
provided by the Agency. Lecturers at the training course will
include high-level experts from other European and African
organisations active in remote sensing applications. Funds for
the training course are being provided by the United Nations



Trust Fund for New and Renewable Sources of Energy; the
primary contributor to that Fund is the Government of Italy.

A similar training course is being planned for Latin American
experts.



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60944
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 04/16/93

In article <1993Apr20.072706.19981@cs.ruu.nl>, jhwitten@cs.ruu.nl (Jurriaan Wittenberg) writes...
>In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov 
>(Ron Baalke) writes:
> 
>>4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
>>interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.

>Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??

The gravity data is collected in real-time and it not recorded to the tape
recorder.  However, you only need to collect the gravity every 3rd or 4th
orbit, so there is no real data loss if the Moon blocks transmission for
a short while.

>BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am
>looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something
>to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)

The aerobraking starts May 25 and is expected last about 70 days.  If the
funding is provided (8 million dollars) to extend the mission for the
high resolution gravity data, then the mission will last through October 1994.
Otherwise, the mission will end this coming July.   
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60945
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

In article <C5rHoC.Fty@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
> rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
> Anyone else know anything on this angle?

The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General
Dynamics.

The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people*
on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd
think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for
modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but
there's not a hint of this in the brochure.

> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(

You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60946
From: Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1qkmkiINNep3@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug
Mohney) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>>
>>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh
yeah,
>>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.
>
>Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING
>LOT of the K-MART!
>    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

They just tore down the Kmart near my house (putting in a new suptermarket).  I
heard that there is a beer drinking ghost who still haunts the place!  8-{)

Tom

I liked this one I read a while ago...

"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60947
From: ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu> snydefj@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>
>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
> Sails

I was at an interesting seminar at work (UK's R.A.L. Space Science
Dept.) on this subject, specifically on a small-scale Solar Sail
proposed as a student space project. The guy giving the talk was keen to
generate interest in the project. I'll typein the handout he gave out at
the meeting. Here goes : 

			The Microlight Solar Sail
			-------------------------

1. Introduction
The solar sail is a well-established concept. Harnessing the pressure of
sunlight, a spacecraft would have unlimited range. In principle, such a
vehicle could explore the whole Solar System with zero fuel consumption.

However it is more difficult to design a practical solar sail than most
people realize. The pressure of sunlight is only about one kilogram per
square kilometer. Deploying and controlling the large area of aluminized
fabric which would be necessary to transport a 'conventional' type
spacecraft is a daunting task. This is why, despite the potential of hte
idea, no such craft has actually been launched to date.

2.Design
Recent advances in microelectronics make possible a different concept: a
tiny sail just a few metres in diameter which could be controlled purely
be electronics, with no mechanical parts. Several attitude control
methods are feasible: for example the pressure sunlight exerts on a
panel of solar cells varies according to whether power is being drawn.

The key components of the craft will be a minute CCD camera developed at
Edinburgh University which can act as both attitude sensor and data
gathering device; solar cells providing ~1 watt power for control and
communication; and a directional radio antenna etched onto the surface
of the sail itself. Launched as a piggyback payload, the total cost of
the mission can be limited to a few tens of thousands of dollars.

3.Missions
The craft would be capable of some ambitious missions. For example:
a) It could rendezvous with a nearby asteroid from the Apollo or Amor
groups. Closeup pictures could be transmitted back to Earth at a low bit
rate.
b) It could be steered into a lunar polar orbit. Previously unobserved
areas around the lunar poles could be viewed. By angling the sail to
reflect sunlight downwards, polar craters whose bases never receive
sunlight could be imaged. Bright reflections would confirm that
volatiles such as water ice have become trapped in these
locations.[Immensely valuable information for setting up a manned lunar
base, BTW]
c) It could be sent to rendezvous with a small asteroid or comet
nucleus. Impacting at low speed, a thin wire probe attached to the craft
causes it to rebound while capturing a tiny sample is a sharp-edged
tube, like performing a biopsy. Returning to Earth, the sail acts as an
ideal re-entry parachute: load per unit area 20 gm/m2 ensures that heat
is reradiated so efectively that the sail temperature cannot exceed ~300
deg C. The material sample is recovered, enclosed in a small insulating
container.

Contact: Colin Jack                              Tel. 0865-200447
Oxford Mathematical Designs, 131 High Street, Oxford OX1 4DH, England

--------------------------------

This guy would love to hear from anyone interested in this project or
seeking details or anything, and would be most happy to send you more
information.

	Andy



-- 
                                  ----------------------------------- 
Andy Jonathan J. Broderick,      | "I have come that they might have |
Rutherford Lab., UK              |  life, and have it to the full"   |
Mail : ajjb@adam2.bnsc.rl.ac.uk  |  - Jesus Christ                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60948
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
course, they may be over-optimistic.

You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
that would help pay for its development costs.

I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60949
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Space Activities in Tucson, AZ ?

I would like to find out about space engineering employment and educational
opportunities in the Tucson, Arizona area.  E-mail responses appreciated.
My mail feed is intermittent, so please try one or all of these addresses.

Ben Muniz      w(818)586-3578      MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@beach.rockwell.com 
or:  bmuniz@a1tms1.remnet.ab.com  MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60950
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <93110.031905SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>says:
>>It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
>>that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
>>Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
>>years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
>>levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
>>put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
>>use grad students?
>
>You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.
>
>Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
>be significant commerical activity on the Moon?

Wishful thinking mostly. It's more likely that the Moon will never
be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
grade fusion reactors. Exploring it would satisfy a curiosity itch, 
and it's position in the gravity well of Earth coupled with it's heat 
sink capacity could offer some military utility for "high ground" military
weapons systems, but it holds very minute commercial value. If space 
travel becomes cheap enough, it might become a tourist attraction as 
Mt. Everest and the Antarctic have become, but that's a very minor 
activity in the global scope of things.

Luna has an inconvienent gravity field. It's likely too low to prevent
calcium loss, muscle atrophy, and long term genetic drift. Yet it's
too high to do micro-G manufacturing. Space based colonies and factories
that can be spun to any convienent value of G look much better. Luna
has a modest vacuum and raw solar exposure two weeks a month, but orbital
sites can have better vacuums and continous solar exposure. Luna offers
a source of light element rocks that can serve as raw materials, heatsink,
and shielding. The asteroids and comets offer sources of both light and
heavy elements, and volatile compounds, and many are in less steep gravity
wells so that less delta-v is required to reach them.

We don't use 2/3rds of the Earth now, the seafloors, and we virtually
ignore Antarctica, a whole continent. That's because we don't have to
deal with those conditions in order to make a buck. Luna is a much more
expensive place to visit, or to live and work. I think we'll use the
easier places first. That pushes Lunar development back at least a few
centuries, if not much longer.

Luna's main short term value would be as a place for a farside radio
astronomy observatory, shielded from the noisy Earth. Or as the site
of a laser, particle beam, or linear accelerator weapons system for
defending Earth, or bombarding it as the case may be. The first is
unlikely because of the high cost for such a basic science instrument.
The second is just as unlikely because conventional nukes are good
enough, and the military would really rather see the Earth safe for
conventional warfare again. There's little glory in watching from a
bunker as machines fight each other over continental ranges. Little
ultimate profit either.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60951
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <C5qIv3.H0o.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
>   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
>   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
>   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
>   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
>   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.
>
>Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
>wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
>to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
>spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
>high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
>fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
>defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
>fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
>cooperation.
>
>Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
>money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
>investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
>the size of that multiplier :->).

Actually I favor government funded research. It *is* a pump prime
for a lot of basic technologies. I also understand the short term
value of high tech welfare programs. But they can't substitute for
long range wealth generation via commercial enterprise. That's what's
needed to maintain a healthy economy *anywhere*, on Earth or Luna.
I don't see that long term potential on Luna due to a bunch of
factors I outline in another post.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60952
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: First Spacewalk

At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.

Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?

Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented !
* How is Frank Zappa doing ?
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60953
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Moonbase race

From: Gene Wright <gene@theporch.raider.net>

>With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints
>by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about
>that might just work.

>Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation
>who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.
>Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin
>to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'll say!  Imagine that there were a couple groups up there, maybe landing
a few weeks apart.  The year-mark starts coming on for the first group.
Isn't a billion pretty good incentive to take a shot at a potential
winner?  "Yeah, that's a shame that Team A's life support gave out
so close to the deadline.  Thanks for the billion."

On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks
in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more
than only 1 billion to get any takers?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60954
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Level 5?


Nick Haines sez;
>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60955
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?


In article <C5qvJC.B4B@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes: 
> The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.

>   However, quite possibly it's
> no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
> can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.

The NASM photo archives are open to the public.  All (or almost all)
still pictures in the collection are available for viewing, but I
don't know about films.  At least it might be worth a try.  I'm not
sure if appointments are necessary, but I think not.

Good luck, and let us know what you find.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact lpf@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60956
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?

In article <1993Apr20.020259.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes"
>such as the following:
>
>Large Corp.
>Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?)
>Large Government (GNP and such)
>Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?)
>Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?)
>Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)

Whatabout, Schools, Universities, Rich Individuals (around 250 people 
in the UK have more than 10 million dollars each). I reecieved mail
from people who claimed they might get a person into space for $500
per pound. Send a skinny person into space and split the rest of the money
among the ground crew!
>
>The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ??
>
>Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ??
>Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class
>winners..
>More fair?
>
>There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events,
>umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want
>to risk thier own lives let them do it?).
>
Agreed. I volunteer for any UK attempts. But one clause: No launch methods
which are clearly dangerous to the environment (ours or someone else's). No
usage of materials from areas of planetary importance.

>Any other ideas??

Yes: We should *do* this rather than talk about it. Lobby people!
The major problem with the space programmes is all talk/paperwork and
no action!

>==
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>


-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60957
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>(Josh Hopkins) writes:
>> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
>> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing. 

>The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General
>Dynamics.

>The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people*
>on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd
>think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for
>modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but
>there's not a hint of this in the brochure.

It may be that they just didn't mention it, or that they actually haven't 
thought about it.  I got the vague impression from their mission proposal
that they weren't taking a very holistic aproach to the whole thing.  They
seemed to want to land people on the Moon by the end of the decade without 
explaining why, or what they would do once they got there.  The only application
I remember from the Av Week article was placing a telescope on the Moon.  That's
great, but they don't explain why it can't be done robotically. 

>> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(

>You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.

But I'm a _member_.  Besides Bill, I hang out with you :) 

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60958
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu> snydefj@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>
>>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>> Sails

>I was at an interesting seminar at work (UK's R.A.L. Space Science
>Dept.) on this subject, specifically on a small-scale Solar Sail
>proposed as a student space project. The guy giving the talk was keen to
>generate interest in the project. I'll typein the handout he gave out at
>the meeting. Here goes : 

[Stuff deleted] 

>However it is more difficult to design a practical solar sail than most
>people realize. The pressure of sunlight is only about one kilogram per
>square kilometer.     ^^^^                                   ^^^^    

I'm glad to see that someone is working on this.  However, it would be nice if
he got his units right.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60959
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu>, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>  Sails. [...]
> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

Sure.  Contact the World Space Foundation.  They're listed in the sci.space
Frequently Asked Questions file, which I'll excerpt.

    WORLD SPACE FOUNDATION - has been designing and building a solar-sail
    spacecraft for longer than any similar group; many JPL employees lend
    their talents to this project. WSF also provides partial funding for the
    Palomar Sky Survey, an extremely successful search for near-Earth
    asteroids. Publishes *Foundation News* and *Foundation Astronautics
    Notebook*, each a quarterly 4-8 page newsletter. Contributing Associate,
    minimum of $15/year (but more money always welcome to support projects).

	World Space Foundation
	Post Office Box Y
	South Pasadena, California 91301

WSF put together a little paperback anthology of fiction and
nonfiction about solar sails: *Project Solar Sail*.  I think Robert
Staehle, David Brin,  or Arthur Clarke may be listed as editor.

Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman,
a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),
and I would expect that Greg Matloff and Eugene Mallove have something
to say about the subject in *The Starflight Handbook*, as well as
quite a few references.


Check the following articles in *Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society*:

V36 p. 201-209 (1983)
V36 p. 483-489 (1983)
V37 p. 135-141 (1984)
V37 p. 491-494 (1984)
V38 p. 113-119 (1984)
V38 p. 133-136 (1984)

(Can you guess that Matloff visited Fermilab and gave me a bunch of
reprints? I just found the file.)

And K. Eric Drexler's paper "High Performance Solar Sails and Related
Reflecting Devices," AIAA paper 79-1418, probably in a book called
*Space Manufacturing*, maybe the proceedings of the Second (?)
Conference on Space Manufacturing.  The 1979 one, at any rate.

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player. 
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60960
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

For that matter, why exactly were the Apollo lunar experiments
"turned off" rather than just "safed".  Was it political (i.e.
as along as they could be used, someone would keep bugging
congress for funds)?  Turning them off keeps them pesky
scientists out of the bureaucrat's hair....  

I've heard the argument that an active but "uncontrolled"
spacecraft causes "radio noise."  I find that hard to believe
that this could be a problem in a properly designed "safe" mode.
This safe mode could be a program routine which causes the
spacecraft to go to least fuel using orientation, and once a
(week, month, year, whatever) attempts a signal lock on Earth.
At that time, if funding has been restored, the mission can
continue.  If no signal is recieved, the spacecraft goes back to
the safe mode for another time period. As we would know when the
spacecraft is going to try to contact Earth, we could be
prepared if necessary.  

As another a spacecraft could do at the attempted contact is
beam stored data towards Earth.  If someone can receive it,
great, if not, so it's lost and no big deal.
By making the time and signal location generally known, perhaps
someone in the world might be able and willing to intercept the
data even if they're not willing to contact the spacecraft.

I see this as being particularly useful for spacecraft which
could have an otherwise long life and are in or are going to
places which are otherwise unaccessible (Jupiter/Saturn Orbit,
exiting the solar system, etc).   

Perhaps those designing future spacecraft (Cassini, Pluto Flyby,
etc) should consider designing in a "pause" mode in case their
spacecraft gets the ax sometime in the future after completion of
the primary mission. Perhaps Mars Observer and Galilleo could
have some kind of routine written in for the post mission
"drift" phase.

So any holes in all this?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60961
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

 > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
 > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
 > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
 > grade fusion reactors.

I don't know what a "low grade" fusion reactor is, but the major
problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some
fractions, but still very small).  Massive amounts of regolith would
have to be processed.

This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
content with being assured that titanium (at .5% in the Earth's crust,
average) would not run out, and touted lunar mines, even though the
market price of ilmenite concentrate these days is around $.06/pound.
This prompted me to look up large potential terrestrial sources.

On the moon, titanium occurs in basalts; "high-Ti" basalts (Apollo 11
and 17) have 8-14% titanium dioxide (by weight).  This is nice, but...
terrestrial continental flood basalts are also typically enriched in
titanium.  They very often have 3% TiO2, frequently have 4%, and
sometimes even 5% TiO2 (again, by weight).  These flood basalts are
*enormous* -- millions of cubic kilometers, scattered all over the
world (Siberia, Brazil, the NW United States, Ethiopia, etc.).  If
even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
mined today).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60962
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes...
>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

It can be, but the problem is a political one, not a technical one. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60963
From: agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Subject: Re: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?

In article <1993Apr20.164655.11048@head-cfa.harvard.edu>, willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
> 
> The NASM photo archives are open to the public.  All (or almost all)
> still pictures in the collection are available for viewing, but I
> don't know about films.  At least it might be worth a try.  I'm not
> sure if appointments are necessary, but I think not.
>
Is posible to make copies of these photographs (or any other aerospace
photographs at NASM) if you pay a copyright fee?

===============================================================================
Andres C. Gaeris	   || "Living example of the application of Newton's
Junior laser fusioneer	   ||  Zeroth Law:
agae@lle.rochester.edu	   ||  `Every body in rest wants to remain in bed'"
===============================================================================

 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60964
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
From: Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>

jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

> >> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
> >> 
> >> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> >> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
> > 
> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> > 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> > Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> > -- 
> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Hmmmm....  The prefix "peri-" is Greek, not Latin, so it's usually used
with the Greek form of the name of the body being orbited.  (That's why
it's "perihelion" rather than "perisol", "perigee" rather than "periterr",
and "pericynthion" rather than "perilune".)  So for Jupiter I'd expect it
to be something like "perizeon".)   :^)

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60965
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Proton/Centaur?

Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60966
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.204838.13217@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

    > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
    > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
    > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
    > grade fusion reactors.

   problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
   reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
   small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some

   This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
   as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
 ...
   even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
   at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
   basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
   could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
   ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
   mined today).

Why Paul, it's obvious.
Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
assume any developments in Ti processing).
Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
of National Importance 

:-) :-) :-) 


(oops, this is sci.space... wrong rules of debate ;-)


Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
use... as to why Lunar natives are cost effective, 
analysis has shown they will be critical in providing
a sheltered manufacturing base, technological innovation,
critical materials and manpower in the war between
the Allies and Central Powers in about two hundred years...

;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60967
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

> Why Paul, it's obvious.
> Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
> as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
> sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
> assume any developments in Ti processing).
> Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
> the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
> of National Importance 
>
> :-) :-) :-) 

Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The
chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving
dominance in the marketplace.

Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced
white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the
metal.

> Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
> in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
> the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
> use...

Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60968
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: Did any DC-X gifs show up?

fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils) writes:

>In article <1qgiah$h9g@news.cerf.net> diaspar@nic.cerf.net (Diaspar Virtual Reality Network) writes:
>>The rollout was great and I got lots of great shots. I attended
>>the press briefing and got shots of the DC-Y model, too. All
>>in 3D
>>
>>David H. Mitchell
>>
>>
>David,
>	Are you still planing on scanning these and posting them
>somewhere?  Hope Hope Hope.  If you could that would be GREAT.

>Thanks for report of the rollout as well
>take care
>Doug

	They did the rollout already??!?  I am going to have to pay more
attention to the news.  Are any of the gifs headed for wuarchive??
 

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Grady 		      |How do they manage it, these humans-beginning
 pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    |each time so innocently, yet always ending up
 pwg25888@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu |with the most blood on their hands?
			      |Fathertree to bugger, O.S. Card's _Xenocide_

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60969
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1993Apr20.223807.16712@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   > Why Paul, it's obvious.
   > Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
   > as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will

   > :-) :-) :-) 

   Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The
   chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving
   dominance in the marketplace.

Darn, caught by the white hot heat of technological progress again...

   Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced
   white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the
   metal.

Spoilsport. Hence the need for increasing fashion
emphasis on anodise Ti jewelry...

   > Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
   > in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
   > the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
   > use...

   Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
   there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

I did not evade the issue at all. I clearly stated that
this would be from diabolical foresight in establishing
a sheltered industrial base for the upcoming Great War ;-)
Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60970
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article F23@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
>
>Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
>to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
>course, they may be over-optimistic.
>
>You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
>that would help pay for its development costs.
>
>I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.

this all sounds like that Indecent Proposal movie.  wouldn't there be
a lot of people that would try this with little hope of working just
to get the dough?  if you have a 1:100 chance and it costs you $10Mil,
then you might pay some stooge a few grand to be your lucky hero.
just send up a few dozen and 1 is bound to survive enough to make YOU
rich.
--DonG

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60971
From: enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.

From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:

........
WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
 hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie. Now, Space Marketing
is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
orbit.  NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
..........

What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.
What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
Is NASA really supporting this junk?
Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
Really, really depressed.

             Enzo
-- 
Vincenzo Liguori                             | enzo@research.canon.oz.au
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone +61 2 805 2983
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   +61 2 805 2929

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60972
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Astronomy Program

In article <28641@galaxy.ucr.edu> datadec@ucrengr.ucr.edu (kevin marcus) writes:
>Are there any public domain or shareware astronomy programs which will
>map out the sky at any given time, and allow you to locate planets, nebulae,
>and so forth?  If so, is there any ftp site where I can get one?

I posted my public-domain MSDOS program "sunlight.zip" to "sci.astro" yesterday.
It easily locates the sun, moon, and planets, and can also be used to
locate other objects if you input their Right Ascesion and Declination.
Use "uudecode" to extract.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

         "Marxism and feminism are one and that one is Marxism"

                             - Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges,
                       quoted by Catharine MacKinnon above the first chapter
                       of her "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State"


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60973
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Data

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:

>> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>>  Sails. [...]
>> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

Bill says ...

>Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman,
>a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),

I presume the one you refer to is "Space Sailing" by Jerome L. Wright.  He 
worked on solar sails while at JPL and as CEO of General Astronautics.  I'll
furnish ordering info upon request.

The Friedman book is called "Starsailing: Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel."
It was available from the Planetary Society a few years ago, I don't know if
it still is.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60974
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?


I don't know a whole lot on Proton, but given that it is a multi stage
rocket,  up to 4 stages, it may not really need the Centaur,  plus
it may end up seriously beating on said centaur.   

Also, the centaur is not small,  unless the Proton has an oversize
shroud you may not be able to get the centaur in under it.

Dennis,  you know much about this?

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60975
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......


And one of my profs is the chief engineer for the project (Dr. Ron
Humble, Univ. Colorado at Colorado Springs).

I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  

<BOOM!>  Whooooooooshhhhhh......  <sputter, sputter>

<okay, PRETEND it would make a sound!>

I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
with the Atlanta Olympics. 

						Fuzzy.
===============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |     "I want peace on earth,
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |       goodwill toward men." 
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     |"We're the government. We don't do that 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | that sort of thing."     -SNEAKERS 
===============================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60976
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu> schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:
> 
>>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
> 
>>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
> 
> Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
> $$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
> moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
> transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
> more than needed.
> 
> This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
> enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
> 
>   Allen
> 
> -- 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
> | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
> +----------------------57 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Or have different classes of competetors.. and made the total purse $6billion
or $7billion (depending on how many different classes there are, as in auto
racing/motocycle racing and such)..

We shall see how things go..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60977
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.



Some birds require constant management for survival.  Pointing a sensor at
the sun, even when powered down, may burn it out.  Pointing a
parabolic antenna  at Sol,  from venus orbit  may trash the
foci  elements.

Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
cosmic phenomena.   

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60978
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
> black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
> on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
> "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
> It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.
> 
> Doug Loss


Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an
astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future of
space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60979
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article <C5szvL.I48@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
>>I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.
>
>this all sounds like that Indecent Proposal movie.  wouldn't there be
>a lot of people that would try this with little hope of working just
>to get the dough?  if you have a 1:100 chance and it costs you $10Mil,
>then you might pay some stooge a few grand to be your lucky hero.
>just send up a few dozen and 1 is bound to survive enough to make YOU
>rich.

Any prize like this is going to need to be worded carefully enough that
you cannot get it without demonstrating sustained and reliable capability,
rather than a lucky one-shot.  It can be done.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60980
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <C5sx3y.3z9.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
>On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks
>in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more
>than only 1 billion to get any takers?

Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60981
From: jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times


Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
to compute sunrise and sunset times.

I would appreciate any advice.

Joe Wetstein
jpw@coe.drexel.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60982
From: todd@phad.la.locus.com (Todd Johnson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
;From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:
;
;........
;WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
;
;1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
;What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
;it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
;Is NASA really supporting this junk?
;Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
;Really, really depressed.
;
;             Enzo

I wouldn't worry about it.  There's enough space debris up there that
a mile-long inflatable would probably deflate in some very short
period of time (less than a year) while cleaning up LEO somewhat.
Sort of a giant fly-paper in orbit.

Hmm, that could actually be useful.

As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one
drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need
to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization
on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.

<todd>

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60983
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

Okay here is what I have so far:

Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon,
set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does
that mean no resupply or ?? 

Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.

Contest open to different classes of participants.

New Mexico State has semi-challenged University of Alaska (any branch) to put a
team together and to do it..
Any other University/College/Institute of Higher Learning wish to make a
counter challenge or challenge another school? Say it here.

I like the idea of having atleast a russian team.


Some prefer using new technology, others old or ..

The basic idea of the New Moon Race is like the Solar Car Race acrossed
Australia.. Atleast in that basic vein of endevour..

Any other suggestions?

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60984
From: jennise@opus.dgi.com (Milady Printcap the goddess of peripherals)
Subject: RE: Looking for a little research help

Found it! Thanks. I got several offers for help. I appreciate it and
will be contacting those people via e-mail.

Thanks again...

jennise

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60985
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be
activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion
beacon, to take a directional plot on??

Wierd or what?
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60986
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when
the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would 
take the offer.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60987
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

Hmm.  $1 billion, lesse... I can probably launch 100 tons to LEO at
$200 million, in five years, which gives about 20 tons to the lunar
surface one-way.  Say five tons of that is a return vehicle and its
fuel, a bigger Mercury or something (might get that as low as two
tons), leaving fifteen tons for a one-man habitat and a year's supplies?
Gee, with that sort of mass margins I can build the systems off
the shelf for about another hundred million tops.  That leaves
about $700 million profit.  I like this idea 8-)  Let's see
if you guys can push someone to make it happen 8-) 8-)

[slightly seriously]

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60988
From: hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
(Enzo Liguori) writes:

> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
selling every bit that promises to make money? I guess we really
deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

	Another depressed planetary citizen,
	hoover



-- 
Uwe "Hoover" Schuerkamp 		     hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de
		Clear Skies --- Fight light pollution!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60989
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Subject: Re: Space Station radio commercial

In article <C5r2I1.793@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>A brief political/cultural item.
>
>Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with
>a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).  
>Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond
>jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines.
>
>This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project.
>Didn't catch the advertiser.
>
>Guess they're pulling out all the stops.

In the Air Force world at least, the crisis escalates when scale
models of the plane in question (i.e. about to be sacrificed) begin to
arrive in key Senators and Congresspersons' offices.

Of course it is assumed that coffee mugs and other decorative junk has
been tried earlier.

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      "I post, therefore I ARMM"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60990
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

> Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
> there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

Paul-- for the same reason that many other colonies are founded. Why not?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60991
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:

>>I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
>>with the Atlanta Olympics. 

>Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this
>orbiting billboard.  Considering the caliber of people running this city, 
>there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit.

I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  Assuming that rockets with specific
impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry
weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer.
A small dispersal charge embedded in about 20 kg of sand or
birdshot (depending on the nature of the structure) would be
the payload.  I am sure the whole project is well within
the capability of the amateur rocketry community.

It sounds like a good Science Fair project--'Reduction
of Light Pollution Through Applied Ballistics'.
Or, it could be part of the Challenge Prize being discussed
here: $1 billion for the first person to spend 1 year
on the moon, $1 million for the first erradication of
an orbital eyesore/CCD burner.  I wouldpledge $1000
for the first person to bring it down, and I am sure
there are at least 999 other astronomers, nature lovers,
or just plain people of good taste who would do likewise.

Of course, a  Gerald Bull solution might be simpler.
(Either the solution Gerald Bull would apply--the use
of a large caliber gun; or the solution which was applied
to Gerald Bull--the use of a small caliber gun.)
-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60992
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Which Gehrels? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?)

In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
> 
>> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
> 
> Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
> me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
> has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
> Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
> Same person?

I would guess not.  Dr. Neil Gehrels of CGRO is the son of Dr. Tom
Gehrels of the University of Arizona.  Since he's long had research
interests in asteroids and other solar-system astronomy, Tom is the
one more likely to have discovered  a comet (and thus had his name
attached to it).

Tom Gehrels is a leader in the Spacewatch project, which has recently
increased mankind's discovery rate on near-Earth asteroids (they're
finding a couple every month).  For much more on this interesting guy,
read his autobiography, *On a Glassy Sea*.

"Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?...    Bill Higgins
Hundreds of thousands of them.  All        
wandering around the Sun in strange        Fermilab
orbits.  Some never named, never
charted.  The orphans of the Solar         higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
System, Mr. Kemp."
                                           higgins@fnal.bitnet
"And you want to become a father."
  --*Moon Zero Two*                        SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60993
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
>Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be
>activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion
>beacon, to take a directional plot on??

>Wierd or what?
>==
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

There is a whole constellation of custom built navigation beacon satellites
in the process of being phased out right now. The TRANSIT/OSCAR satellites
are being replaced by GPS. Or were you thinking of deep space navigation,
which is best done with doppler/VLBI/ stellar measurements. I do not think
additional radio beacons would help much.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60994
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60995
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.

So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60996
Subject: Life on Mars???
From: schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer)

What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
associated theories. (which sound thin to me)

Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
Does anyone buy all the life theories?

-- 
Don Schiewer   | Internet  schiewer@pa881a.inland.com    | Onward Great
Inland Steel   | UUCP:     !uucp!pa881a.inland!schiewer  | Stream...

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60997
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 

Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember,
this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad,
just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60998
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

   Nick Haines sez;
   >(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
   >maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

   Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
   heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

This is a rating system used by ARPA and other organisations to
measure the maturity of a `software process' i.e. the entire process
by which software gets designed, written, tested, delivered, supported
etc.

See `Managing the Software Process', by Watts S. Humphrey, Addison
Wesley 1989. An excellent software engineering text. The 5 levels of
software process maturity are:

1. Initial
2. Repeatable
3. Defined
4. Managed
5. Optimizing

The levels are approximately characterized as follows:

1. no statistically software process control. Have no statistical
   basis for estimating how large software will be, how long it will
   take to produce, how expensive it will be, or how reliable it will
   be.  Most software production is at this level.

2. stable process with statistical controls, rigorous project
   management; having done something once, can do it again. Projects
   are planned in detail, and there is software configuration
   management and quality assurance.

3. The process is defined and understood, implementation is
   consistent. This includes things like software inspection, a
   rigorous software testing framework, more configuration management,
   and typically a `software engineering process group' within the
   project.

4. Statistical information on the software is systematically gathered
   and analysed, and the process is controlled on the basis of this
   information. Software quality is measured and has goals.

5. Defects are prevented, the process is automated, software contracts
   are effective and certified.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 60999
From: mrf4276@egbsun12.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Matthew R. Feulner)
Subject: Re: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

In article <1993Apr20.234427.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|> Okay here is what I have so far:
|> 
|> Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon,
|> set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does
|> that mean no resupply or ?? 
|> 
|> Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.


My first thought is Ross Perot.  After further consideration, I think he'd
be more likely to try to win it...but come in a disappointing third.

Try Bill Gates.  Try Sam Walton's kids.

Matt

matthew_feulner@qmlink.draper.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61000
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:


>Nick Haines sez;
>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
>>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

>Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
>heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

SEI Level 5 (the highest level -- the SEI stands for Software
Engineering Institute).  I'm not sure, but I believe that this rating
only applies to the flight software.  Also keep in mind that it was
*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
did the whole process by hand.  I would not consider receiving a 'Warning'
status on systems which are not yet in use would detract much (if
anything) from such a rating -- I'll have to get the latest copy of
the guidelines to make sure (they just issued new ones, I think).

Also keep in mind that the SEI levels are concerned primarily with
control of the software process; the assumption is that a
well controlled process will produce good software.  Also keep in mind
that SEI Level 5 is DAMNED HARD.  Most software in this country is
produced by 'engineering practicies' that only rate an SEI Level 1 (if
that). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61001
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City

In article <C5rHoC.Fty@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:


>I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in 
>connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.  Sorry I don't 
>rember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure it was somewhere reputable. 
>Anyone else know anything on this angle?

If by that you mean anything on the GD approach, there was an article on
it in a recent Avation Week. I don't remember the exact date but it was
recent.

 Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61002
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

>Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
>to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
>course, they may be over-optimistic.

In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
range.

>You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications
>that would help pay for its development costs.

True it and the contest would result in a much larger market. But I
don't think it would be enough to attract the investors given the
risks involved.

If you could gurantee the SSTO costs and gurantee that it captures
100% of the available launch market, then I think you could
do it.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61003
From: cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook)
Subject: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.

If memory serves, the $25k prize would not have been enough to totally 
reimburse some of the more expensive transatlantic projects (such as 
Fokker's, Nungesser and other multi-engine projects). However Lindbergh 
ultimately kept his total costs below that amount.

But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.

Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
today?

Layne Cook
cook@apt.mdc.com                                             
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61004
From: Andrew Rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> Don Schiewer,
schiewer@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
>associated theories. (which sound thin to me)
>
>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
>Does anyone buy all the life theories?

try   alt.alien.visitors

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61005
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:

>I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide
>with the Atlanta Olympics. 

Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this
orbiting billboard.  Considering the caliber of people running this city, 
there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61006
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lunar Colony Race! By 2005 or 2010?

In article <1993Apr21.140804.15028@draper.com> mrf4276@egbsun12.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Matthew R. Feulner) writes:
>|> Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.
>
>My first thought is Ross Perot.  After further consideration, I think he'd
>be more likely to try to win it...but come in a disappointing third.
>Try Bill Gates.  Try Sam Walton's kids.

When the Lunar Society's $500M estimate of the cost of a lunar colony was
mentioned at Making Orbit, somebody asked Jerry Pournelle "have you talked
to Bill Gates?".  The answer:  "Yes.  He says that if he were going to
sink that much money into it, he'd want to run it -- and he doesn't have
the time."

(Somebody then asked him about Perot.  Answer:  "Having Ross Perot on your
board may be a bigger problem than not having the money.")
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61007
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes:
>What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard 
>associated theories. (which sound thin to me)

The "face" is an accident of light and shadow.  There are many "faces" in
landforms on Earth; none is artificial (well, excluding Mount Rushmore and
the like...).  There is also a smiley face on Mars, and a Kermit The Frog.

The question of life in a more mundane sense -- bacteria or the like -- is
not quite closed, although the odds are against it, and the most that the
more orthodox exobiologists are hoping for now is fossils.

There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.

>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?

Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better
image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody
takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very
face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin
the illusion.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61008
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)

   Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!

Hell, yes. I'm not going to let a bunch of seven suits tell
me what the right way to estimate cost effectiveness is, at
least not until they can make their mind up long enough
to leave their scheme stable for a fiscal year or two.


Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government
whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost
effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked
in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61009
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>
>... Also keep in mind that it was
>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>did the whole process by hand...

I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)

Among other things, the software people worked very hard to get things
right for the major pre-flight simulations, and considered a failure
during those simulations to be nearly as bad as an in-flight failure.
As a result, the number of major-simulation failures could be counted
on one hand, and the number of in-flight failures was zero.

As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
(None of the experimenters could afford it.)
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61010
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR positions

  C-3's bird may be flaking out and expecting to die soon.

or C-3  may orbit over  major users areas, and it may be
needed to provide  redundancy on that plane  while b-4  may orbit
over hicksville, and not have muc of a user community.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61011
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <1r3nuvINNjep@lynx.unm.edu>, cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
> All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
> moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
> development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
> Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.
> But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
> realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.
> Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
> today?

  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.  It didn't require gov't to
fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit
at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.
But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.
  I am sure that a thriving spaceflight industry will eventually develop,
and large numbers of people will live and work off-Earth.  But if you ask
me for specific justifications other than the increased resource base, I
can't give them.  We just don't know enough.  The launch rate demanded by
existing space industries is just too low to bring costs down much, and
we are very much in the dark about what the revolutionary new space industries
will be, when they will practical, how much will have to be invested to
start them, etc.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61012
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <C5uB2s.FD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes:
>There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.

Not quite true.  One of the instruments on Mars Observer will be searching
for potential fossil sites.   

>>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?
> 
>Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better
>image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody
>takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very
>face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin
>the illusion.

The face and the Viking landing sites will be targeted by the high-resolution
camera on Mars Observer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61013
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: First Spacewalk

In article <C5suMG.2rF.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
>At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
>(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.
>
>Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?
>
>Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

This claim was made when someone spotted training film footage spliced into
the footage of the actual spacewalk.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61014
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  

One consideration to remember is that if you don't turn it off now,
you may not be able to later.  This isn't a case of reaching over and
flipping a switch; much of the spacecraft has to be working correctly
to execute a "turn off" command successfully.  Spacecraft do malfunction
in their old age.  The big concern is not radio clutter from idle
spacecraft, but radio clutter from malfunctioning spacecraft that can
no longer be turned off.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61015
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1r2aii$ivs@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>
>I don't know a whole lot on Proton, but given that it is a multi stage
>rocket,  up to 4 stages, it may not really need the Centaur,  plus
>it may end up seriously beating on said centaur.   

The Proton has been used in 2, 3, and 4 stage versions.  The two stage version
was used for the first 3 launches, while the 3 and 4 stage versions are used
today.  The four stage version is used mostly for escape (and geosynchronous?)
orbits, while the 3 stage version is used for low earth orbits.  Since this is
the version that launched Mir and the Salyuts (and the add-on modules for Mir),
as long as Centaur is smaller than Mir (which I believe it is), it should fit
under the shroud.

I vaguely recall that the Russians are developing a LH2/LOX upper stage for the
Proton.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61016
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|
|In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
|cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
|is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
|base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
|much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
|range.
>

Alan,

	don't forget,  a HUGE  cost for airliner developement is FAA
certification.  the joke is when the paperwork  exceeds teh weight
of the airplane,  it will fly.

The SR-71, and teh X-15  both highly ambitious  aero-space projects were done
on very narrow engineering budgets.   Partly because they didn't spend much
on paper  pushing.   There is some company in missouri  trying to
get funding to build light commercial transporters  on a low cost basis,
mostly by reducing FAA  certification costs.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61017
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

In article <1r46ofINNdku@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>orbiting billboard...
>
>I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
>object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
>velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
>you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  Assuming that rockets with specific
>impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry
>weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer...

Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen),
you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for
an antisatellite weapon... :-)

The threshold at which OCST licensing kicks in is roughly 100km.
(The rules are actually phrased in more complex ways, but that is
the result.)
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61018
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.

Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct
some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered
this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.
(Sign of the times: a Sony logo on a Soyuz launcher...)

>Now, Space Marketing
>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>orbit.

This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone
know if he's involved?

>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.

This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
build large, inflatable space structures.

>..........
>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

If this is true, I think it's a great idea.

Learning how to build to build structures in space in an essential
step towards space development, and given that Freedom appears to be
shrinking towards the vanishing point, I question whether NASA's space
station is going to provide much, if any, knowledge in this area.
(Especially if a design such as Faget's wingless orbiter is chosen...)
If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates
creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so
much the better.

>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
idea" stage or does it have real funding?

>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?

Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return
of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61019
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
> 
> In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> >>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
> >>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.
> 
> >Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough
> >to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of
> >course, they may be over-optimistic.
> 
> In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their
> cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO
> is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience
> base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as
> much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G
> range.
> 

For the purpose of a contest, I'd bet some things could be cut.  Like fuel
for re-entry, any kind of heat shielding, etc., etc.  Even still, if the
contest participants had to fund DC-1 development, it probably wouldn't be
worth it to develop DC-1 (just for the contest).  Just give me the cheapest
heaviest lift man rated (or at least under 6 or so Gs) booster...  If I
don't have to pay for DC-1 development, great!, I'll use it.

But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST about a
low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission. 
Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was $6-$9
billion for the US share.

I didn't find a mention of how long the crew could stay, but I'd bet that
its  around 30 days.  And the total payload delivered was about 30 metric
tonnes.  So if you ignore the scientific payload, hitch a ride in the crew
habitation module (no return trip...), and toss in a few more tonnes for
the additional consumables to last another 11 months, then you *might* be
able to get a year visit out of 15 tonnes (and in case its not obvious,
that's a wild ass guess).  A pretty boring visit, since every trip outdoors
eats up a bit of LOX.  And I'm not certain if a home brewed (or
college-brewed) life support system could last a year.  But let's round
this up to 19.4 tonnes (convient, since the GD plan talks about 9.7 ton
payloads delivered to the lunar surface.  This adds up to two Centaurs, two
LEVs, two Shuttle flights... All to put a single man on the moon for a
year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a cheaper/better way of
delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface within the decade?  Anyone
have a more precise guess about how much a year's supply of consumables and
equipment would weigh?

And I was wondering about the GD LEV.  Is it reusable?  Or is it discarded
to burn up on return to LEO?  If its not discarded, could it be refueled? 
Henry: Do you know anything about the GD LEV?  I noted that it uses RL-10
engines.  Aren't they reusable/restartable?  Would a LEV fit in a DC-1? 
I've forgotten (if I ever knew) what the cargo bay dimensions are for the
DC-1.

All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the
moon for a year is wise and/or useful.  How about:  A prize for the first
non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a manned
moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from
lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth.  Find
some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure...  Having a single goal
might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person appeared
to win.  And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little scary
about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters.  I'd
like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition.

Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was an
English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases on
the cheap.  I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human
body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from solar
flares, etc.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. 
Does this ring a bell to anyone?

Craig Keithley                    |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
Apple Computer, Inc.              |I got no memory of anything at all"
keithley@apple.com                |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61020
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?


> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
> > > 
> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii

> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ...

> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
Same person?
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

This article is in the public domain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61021
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse

Forwarded from John Spencer (spencer@lowell.edu):

There will be two eclipses of Iapetus by Saturn and its
rings, in May and July.  Please spread the word!  Here's some
information about the events, and then a couple of messages from Jay
Goguen of JPL appealing for thermal observations of the eclipse to
learn more about the thermal properties of Iapetus.  He might also have
some money available...

John Spencer, 1993/04/21

Iapetus will be eclipsed by the shadows of Saturn's rings and Saturn
itself on 1993/05/01-02 (18:27-13:43 UT) and again on 1993/07/20-21,
(21:16-09:38 UT).  Timing is as follows;

     1993 May 1-2

        A-ring ingress  18:27
               egress   19:30
        B-ring ingress  19:51
               egress   21:42
        C-ring egress   23:00
        Saturn ingress  23:59
               egress   10:02
        B-ring ingress  10:28
               egress   12:19
        A-ring ingress  12:40
               egress   13:43

     1993 July 20-21

        Saturn ingress  21:16
               egress   05:08
        A-ring ingress  05:13  (grazing)
               egress   09:38

Times could be 30 minutes later according to an alternate ephemeris,
and photometric observations are important for refining Iapetus'
orbit.  Because the Sun's size projected on the rings as seen from
Iapetus is 3100 km it's unlikely that we will learn anything new about
the rings themselves from the observations.  See Soma (1992), Astronomy
and Astrophysics 265, L21-L24 for more details.  Thanks to Andy Odell
of Northern Arizona University for bringing the events to my
attention.

THERMAL OBSERVATIONS?

Jay Goguen (jdg@scn5.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) writes:

  To me, the interesting thing to do would be thermal IR of the 20 July
  disappearance into the shadow of the planet to measure thermal inertia,
  etc.  Unfortunately, the 21:30 UT of this event renders it inaccessible,
  except from Russia.  Even from Calar Alto, Saturn is rising through 3
  airmasses at 23:00 UT.  Do you know anyone in Russia or Ukraine with
  a big telescope and 10 um instrumentation that's looking for something
  to do?  I'd be willing to make a personal grant of >$100 for the data.

  Jay

and again:

  please try to encourage anyone that can observe the iapetus planet
  disappearance to do so at thermal wavelengths.  My impression would
  be that it's not an easy observation.  Iapetus will be faint and
  getting fainter in eclipse, so you'll need a big telescope that's a
  good IR telescope and reasonable 10 - 20 um instrumentation.  I don't
  think that combination is widely available at the longitudes that are
  well placed for observation.  We need SOFIA for this one.  One
  possibility would be the IR telescope in India, but it's only a 1.2 m.

jay

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61022
From: globus@nas.nasa.gov (Al Globus)
Subject: Space Colony Size Preferences Summary


Some time ago I sent the following message:
   Every once in a while I design an orbital space colony.  I'm gearing up to
   do another one.  I'd some info from you. If you were to move
   onto a space colony to live permanently, how big would the colony have
   to be for you to view a permanent move as desirable?  Specifically,

   How many people do you want to share the colony with?
 

   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  


   Assume 1g living (the colony will rotate).  Assume that you can leave
   from time to time for vacations and business trips.  If you're young
   enough, assume that you'll raise your children there.

I didn't get a lot of responses, and they were all over the block.
Thanx muchly to all those who responded, it is good food for thought.




Here's the (edited) responses I got:


   How many people do you want to share the colony with?
 
100

   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

Cylinder 200m diameter x 1 km long

Rui Sousa
ruca@saber-si.pt

=============================================================================

>   How many people do you want to share the colony with?

100,000 - 250,000

>   What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

100 square kms surface, divided into city, towns, villages and
countryside.  Must have lakes, rivers amd mountains.

=============================================================================

> How many
1000.  1000 people really isn't that large a number;
everyone will know everyone else within the space of a year, and will probably
be sick of everyone else within another year.

>What physical dimensions does the living are need to have?  

Hm.  I am not all that great at figuring it out.  But I would maximize the
percentage of colony-space that is accessible to humans.  Esecially if there
were to be children, since they will figure out how to go everywhere anyways.
And everyone, especially me, likes to "go exploring"...I would want to be able
to go for a walk and see something different each time...

=============================================================================

For population, I think I would want a substantial town -- big enough
to have strangers in it.  This helps get away from the small-town
"everybody knows everything" syndrome, which some people like but
I don't.  Call it several thousand people.

For physical dimensions, a somewhat similar criterion:  big enough
to contain surprises, at least until you spent considerable time
getting to know it.  As a more specific rule of thumb, big enough
for there to be places at least an hour away on foot.  Call that
5km, which means a 10km circumference if we're talking a sphere.

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

=============================================================================
My desires, for permanent move to a space colony, assuming easy communication
and travel:

Size:  About a small-town size, say 9 sq. km.  'Course, bigger is better :-)
Population:  about 100/sq km or less.  So, ~1000 for 9sqkm.  Less is
better for elbow room, more for interest and sanity, so say max 3000, min 300.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61023
From: n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: NAVSTAR positions


You have missed something.  There is a big difference between being in
the SAME PLANE and in exactly the same state (positions and velocities
equal).  IN addition to this, there has always been redundancies proposed.

Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61024
From: abdkw@stdvax (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <20APR199321040621@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes...
>In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes...
>>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.  
> 
>It can be, but the problem is a political one, not a technical one.

Also remember that every dollar spent keeping one spacecraft in safe mode
(probably a spin-stabilized sun-pointing orientation) is a dollar not
spent on mission analysis for a newer spacecraft.  In order to turn the
spacecraft back on, you either need to insure that the Ops guys will be
available, or you need to retrain a new team.

Having said that, there are some spacecraft that do what you have proposed.
Many of the operational satellites Goddard flies (like the Tiros NOAA 
series) require more than one satellite in orbit for an operational set.
Extras which get replaced on-orbit are powered into a "standby" mode for
use in an emergency.  In that case, however, the same ops team is still
required to fly the operational birds; so the standby maintenance is
relatively cheap.

Finally, Pat's explanation (some spacecraft require continuous maintenance
to stay under control) is also right on the mark.  I suggested a spin-
stabilized control mode because it would require little power or 
maintenance, but it still might require some momentum dumping from time
to time.

In the end, it *is* a political decision (since the difference is money),
but there is some technical rationale behind the decision.

David W. @ GSFC  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61025
From: cchung@sneezy.phy.duke.edu (Charles Chung)
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary  
Coffman) writes:
> >Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
> >be significant commerical activity on the Moon?
> 
> Wishful thinking mostly.
[Lots of stuff about how the commerical moonbase=fantasyland]

Then what do you believe will finally motivate people to leave the  
earth?  I'm not trying to flame you.  I just want to know where you  
stand.

-Chuck
---
*******************************************************************

	Chuck Chung				(919) 660-2539 (O)
	Duke University Dept. of Physics	(919) 684-1517 (H)
	Durham, N.C.      27706			cchung@phy.duke.edu
	
	"If pro is the opposite of con, 
		then what is the opposite of progress?"

*******************************************************************

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61026
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
>than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?

I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau) 
was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost
payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from
2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing
with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now
I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the 
successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early
results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in 
Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue 
their development. 

The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
and erected on the pad?  

They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
(unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61027
From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject:  Level 5

According to a Software engineering professor here, what was actually rated
level five was an ibm unit which produced part of the software for the shuttle,
by not means all of it. 

Interesting note: 90% of the software development groups surveyed were at
level 1. The ibm shuttle groups was the *only* one at level 5!

---
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
C/    Nathan F. Wallace                   C/C/           "Reality Is"         C/
C/    e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu   C/C/    ancient Alphaean proverb    C/
C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/
 



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61028
From: hdsteven@solitude.Stanford.EDU (H. D. Stevens)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1993Apr21.190156.7769@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
|> >Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
|> >What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
|> >than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?
|> 
|> 
|> The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
|> is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
|> which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
|> launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
|> are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
|> up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
|> thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
|> Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
|> how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
|> bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
|> and erected on the pad?  

The Centaur that is being built for T4 would be a better bet to integrate 
onto the Proton as the T4/Centaur is designed for the Extremely Harsh 
envorinment of the T4 launch. It is also closer to 4 m in diameter. 

You've hit on the real kicker, however. The Centaur is pressure stabilized. 
It cannot hold up its own weight without pressure in the tanks. Additionally, 
the pressure difference between the two tanks must be maintained to ~+/- 5 psi. 
That is rather tight to be rocking and rolling on the train. The pressure 
stabilization is how centaur achieves the performance. On numerous occasions
(when I was there 88-91) the AF wanted to see what it would take to make 
a non-pressure stabilized centaur. The answer -- a centaur not worth launching. 

The Atlas/Centaur does not require on-pad integration, however the T4/Centaur
does. I believe the on-pad integration is to a great extent due to the 
cleanliness requirements and PFL configuration, so maybe something can be 
done there........


|> 
|> They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
|> (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
|> any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
|> US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
|> problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

The addition of LOX/LH facilities is critical as the centaur tops off as it 
lifts off. A LHe facility is also needed. I don't know what the proton uses 
for fuel, but since they are derived from ICBM's I would suspect that they 
use storable propellants which don't have the ullage problem that cryo's 
do. If there is no cryo at the sight at all, the addition of these systems 
could be big $$, not to mention the real tech transfer issues involved with 
providing centaur GSE to Russia. That issue alone might be enough to kill 
this idea. 

-- 
H.D. Stevens
Stanford University			Email:hdsteven@sun-valley.stanford.edu
Aerospace Robotics Laboratory		Phone:	(415) 725-3293  (Lab)
Durand Building					(415) 722-3296  (Bullpen)
Stanford, CA 94305			Fax:	(415) 725-3377

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61029
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) Pontificated: 
>
>
>Some birds require constant management for survival.  Pointing a sensor at
>the sun, even when powered down, may burn it out.  Pointing a
>parabolic antenna  at Sol,  from venus orbit  may trash the
>foci  elements.
>
What I was getting at in my post is whether or not it might be
possible to put enough brains on board future deep-space probes
for them to automatically avoid such things as looking at the
sun or going into an uncontrolled tumble.  

I heard once that the voyagers had a failsafe routine built in
that essentially says "If you never hear from Earth again,
here's what to do."  This was a back up in the event a receiver
burnt out but the probe could still send data (limited, but
still some data).  

>Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
>cosmic phenomena.   
>
Since this would be a shutdown that may never be refunded for
startup, if some type of cosmic BEM took out the probe, it might
not be such a big loss.  Obviously you can't plan for
everything, but the most obvious things can be considered.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61030
From: hdsteven@solitude.Stanford.EDU (H. D. Stevens)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

In article <YAMAUCHI.93Apr21131325@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> >NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
|> >since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
|> >(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
|> >may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
|> >Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
|> >project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
|> >monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
|> 
|> This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
|> guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
|> build large, inflatable space structures.
|> 

The CU people have been, and continue to be big ozone scientists. So 
this is consistent. It is also consistent with the new "Comercial 
applications" that NASA and Clinton are pushing so hard. 
|> 
|> >Is NASA really supporting this junk?

Did anyone catch the rocket that was launched with a movie advert 
all over it? I think the rocket people got alot of $$ for painting 
up the sides with the movie stuff. What about the Coke/Pepsi thing 
a few years back? NASA has been trying to find ways to get other 
people into the space funding business for some time. Frankly, I've 
thought about trying it too. When the funding gets tight, only the 
innovative get funded. One of the things NASA is big on is co-funding. 
If a PI can show co-funding for any proposal, that proposal has a SIGNIFICANTLY
higher probability of being funded than a proposal with more merit but no 
co-funding. Once again, money talks!


-- 
H.D. Stevens
Stanford University			Email:hdsteven@sun-valley.stanford.edu
Aerospace Robotics Laboratory		Phone:	(415) 725-3293  (Lab)
Durand Building					(415) 722-3296  (Bullpen)
Stanford, CA 94305			Fax:	(415) 725-3377

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61031
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:
>
>........
>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>side of the booster rockets. 

Things could be worse. A lot worse! In the mid-eighties the
teen/adult sci-fi comic 2000AD (Fleetway) produced a short story
featuring the award winning character "Judge Dredd". The story
focussed on an advertising agency of the future who use high powered
multi-coloured lasers/search lights pointed at the moon to paint
images on the moon. Needless to say, this use hacked off a load of lovers,
romantics and werewolfs/crazies. The ad guys got chopped, the service
discontinued. A cautionary tale indeed!

Marvin Batty.
-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61032
From: swoithe@crackle.uucp (Stan Woithe)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 04/14/93

Hiya 

I'm a VERY amuture astronomer in Adelaide Australia, and today, I heard some
very interesting and exciting news from a local program on TV. As I couldn't
find anything on it on the news server, I have posted this. However, if it is
old information, tell me, and ill sue the TV station for saying they are 
'Up to date' ;-)

(Also, my news server could be slow. . so . . .!!!

I only caught the end of the article, so all the information on the topic
is not known to me at the moment.

The news is of a small 'psudo' planet outside the orbit of pluto found in a 
Hawiian obsevatory, supposably 'recently' - acording to the report.
It was meant to be about 150miles in diamater, and a faily large distance 
from the plutos orbit.  (it had a computer drawing, and the orbit distance
from pluto was about the same as neptune to pluto when they are furthest
apart.  This is all I found out about it. OH it is called Karna. (un-officially
).  
CAn anyone give any more information to me on it???

Thanx.

Brendan Woithe
swoithe@crackle.aelmg.adelaide.edu.au

BTW - if this is old news, does anyone know a good lawyer. . . .8)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61033
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

>>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
>>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
>>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.

>Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct
>some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered
>this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.

In fact, you can all direct your ire at the proper target by ingoring NASA 
altogether.  The rocket is a commercial launch vechicle - a Conestoga flying 
a COMET payload.  NASA is simply the primary customer.  I believe SDIO has a
small payload as well.  The advertising space was sold by the owners of the
rocket, who can do whatever they darn well please with it.  In addition, these
anonymous "observers" had no reason to be startled.  The deal made Space News
at least twice. 

>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. 

>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I think its only fair to find that out before everyone starts having a hissy
fit.  The fact that they bothered to use the conditional tense suggests that
it has not yet been approved.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61034
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:

>cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
>> All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year 
>> moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace 
>>development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of 
>> Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.
>> But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to 
>> realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.
>> Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of 
>> today?

>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.

Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.

>It didn't require gov't to
>fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit
>at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.

Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.

Your logic certainly applies to standard investment strategies.  However, the
concept of a prize for a difficult goal is done for different reasons, I 
suspect.  I'm not aware that Mr Orteig received any significant economic 
benefit from Lindbergh's flight.  Modern analogies, such as the prize for a
human powered helicopter face similar arguments.  There is little economic
benefit in such a thing.  The advantage comes in the new approaches developed
and the fact that a prize will frequently generate far more work than the 
equivalent amount of direct investment would.  A person who puts up $ X billion
for a moon base is much more likely to do it because they want to see it done
than because they expect to make money off the deal.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61035
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

I have a nice quote that I like (or as close as I can remember it).

If I say something that you think is crazy, ask me what I mean before you think
its crazy.. 

So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and
Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 

Sorry my two cents worth. Or is it two rubles worth?

The basic quote idea is from H. Beam Pipers book "Space Vikings". Its a good
book on how civilization can fall, and how it can be raised to new heights.

Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his
first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste.



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61036
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
> 
> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
> 
> 
> 
>     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>   -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --


Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean..
I know of a few that could launch a small package into space.
Not including Ariadne, and the Russian Sites.. I know "Poker Flats" here in
Alaska, thou used to be only sounding rockets for Auroral Borealous(sp and
other northern atmospheric items, is at last I heard being upgraded to be able
to put sattelites into orbit. 

Why must people in the US be fixed on using NASAs direct resources (Poker Flats
is runin part by NASA, but also by the Univesity of Alaska, and the Geophysical
Institute). Sounds like typical US cultural centralism and protectionism..
And people wonder why we have the multi-trillion dollar deficite(sp).
Yes, I am working on a spell checker..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61037
From: Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Surviving Large Accelerations?

Hi,
    I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in
there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them
when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to
the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he
estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not
be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published
in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?
Can this be extended to larger accelerations?

Thanks is advance...
-Amruth Laxman


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61038
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
exploration.

Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..
You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.

There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so
expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or
tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends 
of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of
the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there
normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and
other expenses you can owe more than what you made.
BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe
600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And
the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks.. 

Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go
cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the
eco-freaks or the protectionist.. 
Such fun we have in these interesting times..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61039
From: jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz)
Subject: SSRT Roll-Out Speech

                               SSRT ROLLOUT

                Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
                     The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
                                    
                  Mcdonnell Douglas - Huntington Beach
                              April 3,1993

     Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
miracles of our parent's doing.  For a decade and more the pundits
have told us - "you've lost it!"  The "me" generation is only
living on the accomplishments of the past.

     You and I have even begun to believe the pessimists.  We
listen in awe as the past generation tells of its triumphs.  Living
history they are.  We are privileged to hear those who did it tell
of it.  A few weeks ago some of this very team listened in awe as
General Bernie Schriever told of his team's work - and yes struggle
- to build this nation's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

     What stories can we tell?  Blurry-eyed telescopes?  Thousand
dollar toilet seats?  Even our space launch vehicles hearken only
of that past great time.  They are and seem destined to remain Gen.
Schriever's ICBMs.  I find it hard to swell with pride that the
best new space-lifter idea is to refurbish old Minuteman and
Poseidon ballistic missiles.

     Well - The pessimists are wrong.  The legacy is continuing. 
This event is proof.  To our technological parents: We've listened
to your stories.  We've caught your enthusiasm and can-do spirit. 
And we've learned from your achievements - and your mistakes.  Let
me honor one of you who was part of that history and the impetus
behind this history - Max Hunter.  You are one of the greatest
engineers of the firts great age of space exploration.  Your
insight and discipline built the Thor ICBM - later incorporated
into today's most successful launch vehicle - The Delta.

     You told us in the 60's that a new form of launch vehicle - a
single stage reusable rocket - can and should be built.  You
advocated this idea tirelessly.  It was elegantly simple, as are
all great breakthroughs.  You showed us how to build it.  You
convinced us it could be done.  You are working by our side to weld
its components into place.  Most important - you reminded us of a
prime engineering principle - undoubtably one you learned from the
generation before you - the generation that built transcontinental
aviation in the 1920's and 30's - build a little and test a little
and Max, you passed all of this on  to people like Pat Ladner who
started this program for the SDI.

     Douglas Aircraft didn't start with a DC-10.  They didn't even
start with a DC-3.  Our grandfathers built a little, tested a
little - even sold a little and made a little money - before they
moved on to the next step.  They didn't take a decade or more
before putting the first "rubber on the road."  Max Hunter - you
didn't take ten years to build Thor, and by God we're not going to
take ten years to show that low cost, single stage, reusable
aerospace transportation is real.

     We ended the cold war in a few short years.  It took the  same
team here today but a few years to show through the Strategic
Defense Initiative that the cold war must end.  We - you and us -
launched a series of satellites - The Delta experiments - in about
a year apiece.  This, more than anything else signaled our
commitment to end the impasse between ourselves and the Soviet
Union.  Those who made the decisions on both sides have underscored
the importance of our work in bringing about a new international
relationship.

     But it is the same team which is now  putting in place the
framework for an aerospace expansion that is our legacy for the
next generation.  We will make space access routine and affordable.

     We built this magnificent flying machine in two years.  This
summer a true rocket ship will take off and land on earth for the
first time.  Then we can and surely will build in the next three
years a reusable sub-orbital rocket.  It will allow us to use space
rapidly, affordably, and efficiently as no other nation can.  And
yes - we'll make a little money off it too!

     Then - and only then - we'll spend another three years to
build a fully reusable single stage to orbit system.  The DC-3 of
space will be a reality!  We may even be able to use some of the
rocket propulsion breakthroughs of our former cold war adversaries. 
What a wonderful irony if this SDI product and Russian efforts to
counter SDI merge to power mankind's next step to the stars!

     To be sure, we must guard against the temptations to leap to
the final answer.  Robert Goddard's first rockets weren't Saturn
V's!  If we succumb  to the temptation to ask  for just a few extra
dollars and a few more years to jump immediately to a full orbital
system - we will fail.  Max Hunter and his colleagues showed the
way.  Three years and a cloud of dust - in our case rocket
exhausts.  There is no short-cut.  If we expect to reshape the
world again - we must do it one brick at a time.  Minds on tasks at
hand!

     This project is real.  The torch of American technological
greatness is being passed.  We are Americans.  This machine is
American.  Let's go fly it!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61040
From: jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz)
Subject: U.S. Space Foundation Speech


                          Speech by Pete Worden
                                    
          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference
                                    
                       Colorado Springs, Colorado
                                    
                             April 15, 1993


     What a delightful opportunity to cause some trouble.  For
providing me this forum I would sincerely like to thank the U.S.
Space Foundation.  My topic today is the Single Stage Rocket
Technology rocket or SSRT.  By I intend to speak of more.  How to
lower the cost and make rapid progress.  SSRT is to my mind --
and I hope to convince you -- the erupting a new rallying cry for
our generation in space -- Faster, Cheaper, and Better.

     Faster, Cheaper, Better and SSRT represent the passing of a
torch from one technical generation to another.  It is a new
thing to be sure -- but it is also a relearning of old things
from past masters.

     When we rolled out the SSRT baby two weeks ago, so called
experts told us it violates the laws of physics -- it made no
sense.  For example, Dr. Eberhart Rachtin - former president of
the Aerospace Corp., said of SSRT in the L.A. Times that it,
"defies the best principles of launching payloads into space." 
Well Dr. Rachtin -- you've made us mad!  What are these
principles that SSRT defies?

     Well I'll tell you.  It violates the principle that you need
a giant program office to build space hardware.  It violates the
"fact" that it takes 20 years to build something new.  And it
violates the truism that you cant do anything significant for
less than many billions of dollars.

     It took some of the last generation's experts to teach us
some new/old lessons.  Werhner Von Braun's first rocket was not a
Saturn V.  General Schriever's ICBM's didn't take ten years to
demonstrate.  And the X-1 airplane didn't cost $1 billion.

     It took one of the great engineers of the 1950's to remind
us of these truths -- Max Hunter.  Max, to remind you, was a
senior engineer in the Thor IRBM program, and old faster, better,
cheaper success story.  Max has been persistent in a vision of a
single stage reusable space launch system since the 1960's. 
Because he knew it had to be done in affordable steps - Build a
little, Test a little.

     Next he persuaded us to do a technology demonstration.  We
didn't solicit a bunch of requirements -- they'd just change
every few years anyway.  [ not included in the speech -- The
ALS/NLS has such ephemeral requirements that it would better
known as "Shape Shifter" than "Space Lifter."  We didn't spend a
lot money -- this X-Rocket only cost $60 million.  When's the
last time we even built a new airplane for that?  And it didn't
take a lot of time to build -- McDonnell Douglas completed it in
18 months.  Finally, the government program office consisted of
one very over-worked Air Force Major -- motivated in part by the
threat that he'd get to ride on it in a strapped-on lawn chair if
it ran over cost or schedule.

     As I described what SSRT is -- and isn't keep in mind its
only a first step.  There are several more steps -- and steps
that can easily fail -- before the U.S. can field an SSTO.  But
each step should follow the same principles -- a small management
team -- a few years technology demonstration -- and a modest
budget.

     Let me show a few details on SSRT and how it might evolve:
(See charts)

     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
could do is soft-land on Earth!

     But we do have an answer.  We can follow their build a
little, test a little philosophy to produce a truly affordable
and routine access to space.  I know there are nay sayers among
you -- those who say SSRT is a stunt.  It needs more thermal
protection, the engines are wrong, it would be better to land
horizontally, etc, etc.

     I say to you -- we'll see you at White Sands in June.  You
bring your view-graphs, and I'll bring my rocketship.  If we do
what we say we can do, then you let us do the next step.  [ not
included in the speech:  If we fail -- you still have your
program offices, staff summary sheets, requirement analyses, and
decade long programs.]

     I bet on my generation and Max Hunter's idea -- Any Takers?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61041
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
|
|>Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)
|
>Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!

Let it never be said that an opportunity was missed to put someone down.



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61042
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?


Well thank you dennis for your as usual highly detailed and informative 
posting.   

The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?   

Now if it uses storables,  then  how long would it take for the russians
to equip something at cape york?

If  Proton were launched from a western site,  how would it compare to the
T4/centaur?   As i see it, it should lift  very close to the T4.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61043
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

In article <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>
>Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his
>first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste.
>
>
Piper lived in my town (Williamsport, PA) when he killed himself.  It
was in the early '60's.  He had had more than a few books published by
that time, but he was down on his luck financially.  Rumor was that he
was hunting urban pigeons with birdshot for food.  He viewed himself as
a resourceful man, and (IMO) decided to check out gracefully if he
couldn't support himself.  The worst part is that John Campbell, the
long-time editor of Astounding/Analog SF magazine had cut a check for
Piper's most recent story, and said check was in the mail.  If Campbell
had known Piper's straits, I'm sure he would have phoned to say hang on.
Campbell was like that.

I wish it had happened differently.  I always enjoyed Piper's stuff.

Doug Loss



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61044
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:


>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

Maybe in the 24th century they could do gamma ray spectroscopy on
distant asteroids with an orbiting observatory, but here in the
primitive 20th we have to send a probe there to get gamma ray
spectroscopy done.

>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

You have the info on Mayan Television yet?

>This article is in the public domain.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61045
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

You forget that Apollo was a Government program and had to start 
relatively from scratch. Some people at NASA think that this could work. 
One of them replied to me personally after I posted this original message 
several days ago. I have heard Jerry Pournelle suggest this idea before.

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61046
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:

>> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

>This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

>If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
>terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
>selling every bit that promises to make money? I guess we really
>deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
>guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

>	Another depressed planetary citizen,
>	hoover


This isn't inherently bad.

This isn't really light pollution since it will only
be visible shortly before or after dusk (or during the
day).

(Of course, if night only lasts 2 hours for you, you're probably going
to be inconvienenced. But you're inconvienenced anyway in that case).

Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, and most of us aren't Indo
European; those people speaking Indo-Eurpoean languages often have
much non-indo-european ancestry and cultural background. So:
please try to remember that there are more human activities than
those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
Priesthood.

And why act distressed that someone's found a way to do research
that doesn't involve socialism?

It certianly doesn't mean we deserve to die.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61047
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu+ wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
+
+I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
+really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
+Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  
+
Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance
which expanded in vacuum. Once inflated the substance was no longer
needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
disastrous deflation.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61048
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: First Spacewalk

In article <C5suMG.2rF.1@cs.cmu.edu+ flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
+At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk 
+(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.
+
+Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?
+
+Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

I, for one, would be an avid reader of a sci.space.ussr.what.really.
happened.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61049
From: dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon)
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

 ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!

  This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary, 
ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!

  Ether, the theoretical propogation media of electro-magnetic 
waves, was concluded not to exist, based on the results of the 
Michelson-Moreley experiment conducted a century ago. 

  I propose that those conclusions are flawed, based on the fact 
that the experiment was designed to look for a flow parallel to the 
earth's surface, not perpindicular. (Due to the prevailing assumption 
that the earth traveled through the ether as a ball through the wind)

  The reversal of the that conclusion, a pivotal keystone in the 
development of modern scientific thought, could have ramifications 
of BIBLICAL proportions through out the WORLD!!

  REMEMBER: Einstien said Imagination is greater than knowledge!!

  
1
  I dream like this: ether based reality
 
  The ether is like a fluid out of phase with our reality. Creations 
start as a lattice placed into the ether. Given a spin, the lattices
both drag the fluid, like a margarita blender, and ingest it, 
converting it, distilling localized mass, time and energy. 
(non-spinning lattice = "dark matter")

  The earth isn't exactly spinning, around the sun. Picture an image 
of a galaxy; we haven't any videos of them spinning. Picture us 
being stationary, and the sun's image being dragged across the sky by 
the spinning ether field. (Picture an onion, each layer of which is 
spinning a little faster than the next. A thread shot at the inner 
kernel would be stretched diagonally sideways, its head being in a 
faster shell than its tail, until it finally intersected the ground 
of the inner kernel, its direction vector being straight down, but 
its "foot print" being a line, not a point. [sunrise, sunset])
  
  The moon isn't exactly orbiting us. It is a parasite, (non self 
spin sustaining ) being dragged in the earth's ether field, which is 
itself in the sun's much more powerful field. Our seasons are the 
wobble of earth's axis, like a top slowing down. The "orbit" of the
earth around the sun is all of the stars' images being dragged around
by the sun's ether feild.

  The earth, moon and sun are about the same size and "distance" 
apart. Its just that the time between them varies greatly, because 
the "path" is not the same. The moon's lattice in the ether is like 
sticking a fork in a plate of spaghetti and giving the plate a half 
turn. The sun's lattice has so much spin that its like the fork has 
got the whole plate of noodles wound up. The piece of light going to 
the moon can slide down the spaghetti and maybe make a "j" hook at 
the end. The piece of light going to the sun has to go around the 
whole plate, like a needle in a record, before it gets there. 

  With a pencil, compass, and rule, draw a diagram of how the moon 
can be about as big as "earth's" shadow upon it, and at other times 
totally eclipse the sun. Look in the sky. except for your Knowledge, 
would you guess that they are about the same size, just because they 
look about the same size?

   O .     - -                 E     O   O   O   S
 E       /     \            
    M    |      |      OR                M    
         \ _ _ /                         
       S                           
       
  The full moon, quarter moon etc. is the difference between rate
of ether spins. What we are looking at is a rotating "turntable view" 
of the moon, only half of which is facing the sun. ( I've seen a 
half moon within about 120 degrees (of sky) of the sun, during the 
day. Try and draw that "earth shadow.") Its only the moon's image 
which appears to orbit us. No matter where it is, the light part is 
the part facing the sun, and the dark part is the half facing away 
from the sun, even when it appears to be behind us.

  "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is 
closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase 
of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion. 
(defining edge = 0 ether spin) What we are seeing could be 
essentially happening now. The "piece" of light may have experienced 
many years, but the trip could be very quick, our time.

  To time travel or warp space I might consider learning to 
de-spin myself. (phase out my mass) Good luck trying to design 
a propulsion system to drag around a space-time locality. (its like 
trying to move a balloon by shooting a squirt gun from within)

  To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history. I'd 
look in the book of life. (or holy grail etc.) Brain waves just 
might carry decipherable data. I'd start looking on some part of the 
spectra said to be unusable, due to all the background noise. (4+ 
billion humans?) I'd totally isolate myself, record me thinking DOG 
backwards, and learn to read what I got. (Microsoft Holy Grail card 
for Pentium!)

  Next, concluding that my thoughts were recorded on a non time-bound 
media, the ether, and that it is I who move forward (in time). I 
would try to temporarily locally reverse the flow, (of time, which 
I'd start looking for as flowing opposite magnetism, pole to pole. 
[Why not?]) perhaps by passing a LARGE, FLAT DC current through a 
two foot diameter. coil or choke or something, and seeing what I 
could get with my machine's receiver next to it.  

  If you don't think you'll live to see it, consider this: QUIT 
PUTTING THE REPRODUCTIVE KEYS OF OTHER LIFE IN YOUR BODY! All of 
life's data could be written on the wind, (ether) not just our 
thoughts. DNA could be a little receiver or file access code. By 
eating SEEDS, we could be jamming our reception, or receiving plant 
instructions. Try eating seed bearing fruit. Maybe those Greek or 
biblical guys did live hundreds of years. I'm curios to see what 
they did and ate. Don't worry if your hair stops growing. (Maybe we 
don't need to eat at all, the cosmos are formed from nothing, and 
that is creating matter! I only need enough to bounce around. Where 
did the household concept 'immortal' come from? Wheat is a weed, it 
is programmed to pull from the soil, reproduce like hell, and then 
die)

  Warning about writing to the past:
I had a little dream of being in a world, in the near parallel 
future, lying along a path of history which we have diverged from. 
There were; twelve telepathic, glowing beings, who looked like an 
Oscar award and who had always been, a dark one who looked like us, 
and then myself. The dark one was in the process of making the 
others into gods, (he had to teach them what that meant) by 
"advising" them in their past. Basically, he manipulated them into 
reproducing, and raising their children on his seed. He said that 
the little ones who looked different were a sub-species, meant to 
provide service. He carefully combed through history, rewriting it 
in his favor, pulling like a weed anything that compromised his 
control. He enticed recruits by sending them his visions, saying 
that there was immortality at the end of the road for only twelve 
souls: kill or be killed. The amount of control he could exert was 
finite, though, as at every change he made, a void would appear in 
our reality. The universe one day ended 100 meters from us: it 
seemed odd, but we couldn't remember how else it should be. Then 
some of the twelve were no more. Finally, when he could prune no 
more, and reality stopped just beyond his fingertips, he stepped 
through his portal to the past, to bask, over and over, in all that 
he had created. I made a few more changes, and lost my body, 
existing only on the wind. 

  MORAL: Its very possible to eliminate from your reality the souls 
whose will's are not in harmony with yours (Golden Rule - treat 
others as you wish to be treated) I.E., you could end up along a 
lonely thread of time with murderers or flowery brown-nosers for 
playmates. (its not eternal, there's more than one way back) 

 Accepting rides to the past:
Once here, the one who looks like us sells rides, he can make you a 
Prince, or a Queen, or you can live as a god in ancient Greece. Go 
ahead, repeat the third grade as often as you like, Adam henry. 
I Hope you like inspecting your socks. Careful though, if he likes 
your work, but thinks you're getting wise, he can direct you to cross 
paths with your old self, and you'll vanish as you rewrite your own 
course of history, none the wiser.

  As we pass the point along the parallel line where he stepped 
back in time, his hierarchy will lose its direction. He can still 
make changes while he's here, its just that that is work, and with 
every 'adjustment', this becomes less the world he cultivated, which 
loosens his grip, and his organization is suddenly one branch less. 
But he can't see the change. The basic nature of man is good. He had 
to apply his hand to achieve his world. As he now tightens his hand 
to retain what he built, the more sand slips through his fingers. 

  How about public computer access to the I.R.S. ? Its our country, 
our money, and they're spending it on us, RIGHT? Imagine this: 
Washington marks the next cost at 8, IRS collects 10, gives 5 to 
congress, and just absolutely buries 5. Congress borrows 2. The banks 
are making, what, a 30% margin (interest) on our government? Big 
corporations are ecstatic if they can do a 10% margin. What do the 
banks do with it? Hold some on a carrot to the world, sure, but 
mostly, bury it. WHY? Food production is 2% GNP?, construction 6% ? 14 
hours to build your auto?  The people are spending all of their time 
to buy back a tenth of what they produce. Have we been deceived? If 
we are more efficient, why is it getting harder to get by? What if 
the point is just to keep the people busy making widgets? 

  In that other reality, I shouted to the twelve, "its chaos!" They 
said, "no, its order." He defined chaos as that which is he was not 
able to control.

  Rain forest: The problem could be that all the water in its canopy 
would hide the  location of an indigenous people who have no 
language. (telepathic; and 'vanishing' the closest knowledge of death)
(think of the spine as a transceiver, if it is on the ground and 
pointed up, you can locate it from above) These people are probably 
naive as children, but very, very tough to kill. Also, They should 
be able to tell you stories about the dark one that I talk about. 
They can hear him. I think that Ham and world band radio old timers 
might have a story to tell on this. These people would be on a 
different frequency than us as they aren't eating seeds.

  Famine relief: When I make my diet almost all whole wheat, I get a 
huge belly, lose muscle mass, sleep A LOT, and get sick. When I eat 
only fresh fruit, I get more energy, a Hollywood-flat belly, and 
need a lot less sleep.

  UN. Peace Keeping; There is fighting and killing all over. The 
troops go in when there is no bread on the shelf. (its OK to kill 
each other, just make sure there is enough to eat.)

  Somalia: What is disturbing is energetic, gun carrying, three foot 
tall sixteen year-olds, who eat nothing but some roots that they 
suck on. It is not so much that their growth is stunted, it is that 
they aren't dying at a rate of 50 of 60 years per life. 

  Women with children, Babes in arms: Historical references to women 
and children as a single unit could mean that infants were not cut 
from the umbilical cord. (and hence, were not breast fed) I think 
that there may be some very interesting results to this, such as 
mother-child telepathy, and blue blooded infants. There are examples 
of this practice in the aquatic mammal kingdom to investigate.

  That guy is the master of illusion, and the ultimate liar. He 
tells it first, and then just follows the thread of time in which 
the people are willing to buy it. (in which he can make it so) He'll 
play a poker face up until he thinks he's cornered, and then he'll 
whine, beg and grovel. All it means to him is that you're willing to 
live on the ground work that he has laid, that is, that he was 
right, and he didn't over play his hand, and he won't need to go 
back and try another thread of time. You have ultimate control over 
your destiny, just don't live along a path that leads to a reality 
in which you don't want to be a part of. 

  I don't claim to be the first to think these things, its just 
that the others could have been 'pruned' from our path. Maybe these 
thoughts given to me were laid down on the track of time, after him.

  
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61050
From: pmolloy@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (G. Patrick Molloy)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu 
writes:
> Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
> exploration.
> 
> Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..
> You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.
> 
> There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so
> expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or
> tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends 
> of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of
> the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there
> normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and
> other expenses you can owe more than what you made.
> BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe
> 600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And
> the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks.. 
> 
> Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go
> cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the
> eco-freaks or the protectionist.. 
> Such fun we have in these interesting times..
> 
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

The current mining regulations and fees were set in the 1800's!
What the so-called "eco-freaks" want to do is to simply bring those
fees in line with current economic reality.  Currently, mining companies
can get access to minerals on public lands for ridiculously low prices --
something like $50!  The mining lobby has for decades managed to block
any reform of these outdated fees.  In fact, the latest attempt to reform
them was again blocked -- President Clinton "compromised" by taking the
mining fee reforms out of his '94 budget, and plans to draft separate
legislation to fight that battle.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you take this to talk.environment.

G. Patrick Molloy
Huntsville, Alabama

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61051
From: jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
>> > > 
>> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
>
>> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ...
>
>> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.
>
>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

Neil Gehrels is Prof. Tom Gehrels son.  Tom Gehrels was the discoverer
of P/Gehrels 3 (as well as about 4 other comets - the latest of which
does not bear his name, but rather the name "Spacewatch" since he was
observing with that system when he found the latest comet).  

>-- 
>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner

---------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti 
{jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
---------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61052
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

This discussion is better followed in talk.politics.space
Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61053
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <1993Apr21.210712.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
>Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean...

In fact, you probably want to avoid US Government anything for such a
project.  The pricetag is invariably too high, either in money or in
hassles.

The important thing to realize here is that the big cost of getting to
the Moon is getting into low Earth orbit.  Everything else is practically
down in the noise.  The only part of getting to the Moon that poses any
new problems, beyond what you face in low orbit, is the last 10km --
the actual landing -- and that is not immensely difficult.  Of course,
you *can* spend sagadollars (saga- is the metric prefix for beelyuns
and beelyuns) on things other than the launches, but you don't have to.

The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for
more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit.
For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop
a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper
might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less
ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)  Any plan for doing
sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
money in a big way.

Given this, questions like whose launch facilities you use are *not* a
minor detail; they are very important to the cost of the launches, which
dominates the cost of the project.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61054
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

In article <EfpX7WS00Uh7QAoP1S@andrew.cmu.edu> Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>... here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
>fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
>course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?

This sounds a bit high to me.  Still higher accelerations have been endured
*very briefly*, during violent deceleration.  If we're talking sustained
acceleration, I think 30-odd gees has been demonstrated using water immersion.

I doubt that any of this generalizes to another order of magnitude.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61055
From: nick@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de (   Nikan B Firoozye )
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

A related question (which I haven't given that much serious thought 
to): at what lattitude is the average length of the day (averaged 
over the whole year) maximized? Is this function a constant=
12 hours? Is it truly symmetric about the equator? Or is
there some discrepancy due to the fact that the orbit is elliptic
(or maybe the difference is enough to change the temperature and
make the seasons in the southern hemisphere more bitter, but
is far too small to make a sizeable difference in daylight
hours)?

I want to know where to move.

	-Nick Firoozye
	nick@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61056
From: rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
to sunrise and sunset times.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: 410-455-2458
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: rostamian@umbc.bitnet
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: rouben@math.umbc.edu
======================================================================
Definitions:

z = the tilt of the axis of the planet away from the normal to its
orbital plane.  In case of the Earth z is about 23.5 degrees, I think.
I do not recall the exact value.  In case of Uranus, z is almost
90 degrees.

u = latitude of the location where the length of the day is measured.
Paris is at about 45 degrees.  North pole is at 90.

a = angular position of the planet around the sun.  As a goes from
0 to 360 degrees, the planet makes a full circle around the sun.
The spring equinox occurs at a=0.

L = daylight fraction = (duration of daylight)/(duration of a full day).
On the equator (u=0) L is always 1/2.  Near the north pole (u=90 degrees)
L is sometimes one and sometimes zero, depending on the time of the year.

Computation:
Define the auxiliary angles p and q by:
sin p = sin a sin z
cos q = h ( tan u tan p ),       (0 < q < 180 degrees)

Conclusion:
L = q / 180   (if q is measured in degrees)
L = q / pi    (if q is measured in radians)

Wait!  But what is h?
The cutoff function h is defined as follows:

h (s) = s    if  |s| < 1
      = 1    if   s > 1
      = -1   if   s < 1

As an interesting exercise, plot L versus a.   The graph will shows
how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
the arctic circle.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: 410-455-2458
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: rostamian@umbc.bitnet
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: rouben@math.umbc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61057
From: dfegan@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Egan)
Subject: Re: *** HELP I NEED SOME ADDRESSES ***

In <1993Apr20.041300.21721@ncsu.edu> jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:

>    I'm trying to get mailing addresses for the following
>companies.  Specifically, I need addresses for their personnel
>offices or like bureau.  The companies are:

>	- Space Industries, Inc.  (Somewhere in Houston)
          101 Courageous Dr. 
          Leage City, TX  77573
          Phone: (713) 538-6000   

         
Good Luck!
Doug 
--
 Doug Egan                                  "It's not what you got -
 Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co.       It's what you give."          
 Houston, TX                                                  -Tesla      
 ***** email:  egan@blkbox.com  *****                                    

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61058
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1993Apr22.003719.101323@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>prb@access.digex.com (Pat) Pontificated: 
>>
>>
>
>I heard once that the voyagers had a failsafe routine built in
>that essentially says "If you never hear from Earth again,
>here's what to do."  This was a back up in the event a receiver
>burnt out but the probe could still send data (limited, but
>still some data).  
>

Voyager  has the unusual  luck to be on a stable trajectory out of the
solar system.   All it's doing is collecting  fields  data,  and routinely
squirting it down.  One of the mariners is also in stable
solar orbit,  and still providing similiar  solar data.  

Something  in a planetary orbit,  is subject to much more complex forces.

Comsats, in "stable " geosynch  orbits,  require  almost daily
stationkeeping operations.   

For the occasional  deep space bird,  like PFF  after pluto,  sure
it could be left on  "auto-pilot".  but things like  galileo or
magellan,  i'd suspect they need enough  housekeeping that
even untended they'd  end up unusable after a while.

The better question  should be.

Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
to support these kind of ongoing science missions.

pat

	When ongoing ops are mentioned,  it seems to  always quote  Operations
and Data analysis.  how much would it cost to collect the data
and let it be analyzed  whenever.  kinda like all that landsat data
that sat around for 15 years before someone analyzed it for the ozone hole.

>>Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
>>cosmic phenomena.   
>>
>Since this would be a shutdown that may never be refunded for
>startup, if some type of cosmic BEM took out the probe, it might
>not be such a big loss.  Obviously you can't plan for
>everything, but the most obvious things can be considered.
>
>
>/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
>| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
>| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
>| what I said is not what I meant."                             |



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61059
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

 Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.

they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like
the moon when theyare done.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61060
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.



I once read an article on  Computer technology  which stated that 
every new computer technology was actually lower and slower then what it
replaced.  Silicon was less  effective then the germanium  products
then available.   GaAs  was less capable then Silicon.  Multi-processors
were slower then  existent single processors.

What the argument was, though was that these new technologies promised either
theoretically future higher performance  or lower cost or higher densities.

I think that the DC-1  may g=fit into this same model.

ELV's can certainly launch more weight  then  a SSRT,  but 
an SSRT offers the prospect of  greater cycle times and  lower costs.

This is kind of a speculative posting,  but I thought i'd throw it out as
a hjistorical framework  for those interested in the project.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61061
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
#The better question  should be.
#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.

Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
changing them to a seperate agency help anything?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61062
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: DC-X: Choice of a New Generation (was Re: SSRT Roll-Out Speech)

In article <1r4uos$jid@access.digex.net> jkatz@access.digex.com (Jordan Katz) writes:

>		   Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
>			The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
>
>	Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
>up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
>nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
>miracles of our parent's doing. 

>                          Speech by Pete Worden
>          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference

>     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
>generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
>and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
>can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
>could do is soft-land on Earth!

Just out of curiousity, how old is Worden?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61063
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
>exploration.
>Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..

If raw materials where to cost enough that getting them from space would
be cost effective then the entire world economy would colapse long
before the space mines could be built.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61064
From: ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Andrew Broderick)
Subject: DC-X & DC-Y


Hi guys,
	I've been hearing lots of talk on the net about DC-X and DC-Y,
but none of the many posts actually explain what they are !!! Sorry if
this is a FAQ, but would somebody please explain to me what they are.
Reply by Email please . . . thanks.

	Andy

ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk
-- 
                                  ----------------------------------- 
Andy Jonathan J. Broderick,      | "I have come that they might have |
Rutherford Lab., UK              |  life, and have it to the full"   |
Mail : ajjb@adam2.bnsc.rl.ac.uk  |  - Jesus Christ                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61065
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.

	Mind you, my father was a vacuum-tube fan in the 60s (Switched
to solid-state in the mid-seventies and then abruptly died; no doubt
there's a lesson in that) and his account could have been biased.

							James Nicoll

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61066
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr21.162800.168967@locus.com> todd@phad.la.locus.com (Todd Johnson) writes:

   As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one
   drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need
   to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization
   on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.

Hmmm. It actually isn't all that much, is it? Like about 2 million
km^2 (if you think that sounds like a lot, it's only a few tens of m^2
per burger that said organization sold last year). You'd be best off
with a reflective substance that could be sprayed thinly by an
unmanned craft in lunar orbit (or, rather, a large set of such craft).
If you can get a reasonable albedo it would be visible even at new
moon (since the moon itself is quite dark), and _bright_ at full moon.
You might have to abandon the colour, though.

Buy a cheap launch system, design reusable moon -> lunar orbit
unmanned spraying craft, build 50 said craft, establish a lunar base
to extract TiO2 (say: for colour you'd be better off with a sulphur
compound, I suppose) and some sort of propellant, and Bob's your
uncle.  I'll do it for, say, 20 billion dollars (plus changes of
identity for me and all my loved ones). Delivery date 2010.

Can we get the fast-food chain bidding against the fizzy-drink
vendors? Who else might be interested?

Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not
much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km
inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your
key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of
identity).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61067
From: chico@ccsun.unicamp.br (Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues)
Subject: New planet/Kuiper object found?


	Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
named the object Karla.

	The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
should be composed by rocks and ices.

	Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
new planet or a Kuiper object?

	Thanks in advance.

	Francisco.

-----------------------=====================================----the stars,----
|    ._,               | Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues    |       o   o     |
|  ,_| |._/\           |                                   |     o         o |
|  |       |o/^^~-._   | COTUCA-Colegio Tecnico da UNICAMP |   o             |
|/-'    BRASIL      | ~|                                   |  o      o o     |
|\__/|_            /'  | Depto de Processamento de Dados   |  o    o  o  o   |
|      \__  Cps   | .  |                                   |   o  o  o    o  |
|        |   * __/'    | InterNet : chico@ccsun.unicamp.br |     o o      o  |
|        >   /'        |            cotuca@ccvax.unicamp.br|             o   |
|      /'   /'         | Fone/Fax : 55-0192-32-9519        | o         o     |
|     ~~^\/'           | Campinas - SP - Brasil            |    o   o        |
-----------------------=====================================----like dust.----


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61068
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Golden & Space ages

Pat sez;
>Oddly, enough,  The smithsonian calls the lindbergh years
>the golden age of flight.  I would call it the granite years,
>reflecting the primitive nature of it.  It was  romantic,
>swashbuckling daredevils,  "those daring young men in their flying
>machines".  But in reality, it sucked.  Death was a highly likely
>occurence,  and  the environment blew.

Yeah, but a windscreen cut down most of it.  Canopies ended it completely.

Of course, the environment in space continues to suck :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61069
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Subject: message from Space Digest





Press Release No.19-93
Paris, 22 April 1993

Users of ESA's Olympus satellite report on the outcome of
their experiments

"Today Europe's space telecommunications sector would not
be blossoming as it now does, had OLYMPUS not provided
a testbed for the technologies and services of the 1990s". This
summarises the general conclusions of 135 speakers and 300
participants at the Conference on Olympus Utilisation held in
Seville on 20-22-April 1993. The conference was organised by
the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Spanish Centre for
the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI).

OLYMPUS has been particularly useful :
-      in bringing satellite telecommunications to thousands of
       new users, thanks to satellite terminals with very small
       antennas (VSATs). OLYMPUS experiments have tested
       data transmission, videoconferencing, business television,
       distance teaching and rural telephony, to give but a few
       examples.

-      in opening the door to new telecommunications services
       which could not be accommodated on the crowded lower-
       frequency bands; OLYMPUS was the first satellite over
       Europe to offer capacity in the 20/30 GHz band.

-      in establishing two-way data relay links  OLYMPUS
       received for the first time in Europe, over several months,
       high-volume data from a low-Earth orbiting spacecraft and
       then distributed it to various centres in Europe.

When OLYMPUS was launched on 12 July 1989 it was the
world's largest telecommunications satellite; and no other
satellite has yet equalled its versatility in combining four
different payloads in a wide variety of frequency bands.

OLYMPUS users range from individual experimenters to some
of the world's largest businesses. Access to the satellite is
given in order to test new telecommunications techniques or
services; over the past four years some 200 companies and
organisations made use of this opportunity, as well as over
100 members of the EUROSTEP distance-learning
organisation.



As the new technologies and services tested by these
OLYMPUS users enter the commercial market, they then
make use of operational satellites such as those of
EUTELSAT.

OLYMPUS utilisation will continue through 1993 and 1994,
when the spacecraft will run out of fuel as it approaches the
end of its design life.

       

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61070
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?


In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu>, schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.130503.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>|> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:
>|> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints 
>|> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about 
>|> > that might just work.
>|> > 
>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation 
>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year. 
>|> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin 
>|> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
>|> > 
>|> > --
>|> >   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
>|> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
>|> ====
>|> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
>|> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
>|> in Australia..
>|> Anybody game for a contest!
>|> 
>|> ==
>|> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>
>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
>

Feasability study??  What a wimp!!  While you are studying, others would be
doing.  Too damn many engineers doing way too little engineering.

"He who sits on his arse sits on his fortune"  - Sir Richard Francis Burton
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61071
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)


In article <1qn044$gq5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>I thought that under emergency conditions,  the STS  can
>put down at any good size Airport.  IF it could take a C-5 or a
>747, then it can take an orbiter.   You just need a VOR/TAC
>
>I don't know if they need ILS.

DFW was designed with the STS in mind (which really mean very little).  Much of
their early PR material had scenes with a shuttle landing and two or three
others pulled up to gates.  I guess they were trying to stress how advanced the
airport was.

For Dallas types:  Imagine the fit Grapevine and Irving would be having if the
shuttle WAS landing at DFW. (For the rest, they are currently having some power
struggles between the airport and surrounding cities).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61072
From: hancock@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (thomas hancock)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
The Centaur is controlled technology..
State Dept will not allow it to be used outside of US. Sorry.
>In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:
>>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>>What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
>>than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?

>I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau) 
>was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost
>payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from
>2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing
>with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now
>I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the 
>successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early
>results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in 
>Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue 
>their development. 

>The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton 
>is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
>which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
>launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
>are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
>up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
>thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
>Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know 
>how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
>bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
>and erected on the pad?  

>They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads 
>(unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
>any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
>US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
>problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. 

>Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
>Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
>Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61073
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

The only ether I see here is the stuff you must
have been breathing before you posted...

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61074
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Commercial mining activities on the moon

In article <STEINLY.93Apr21152344@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government
>whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost
>effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked
>in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)

What do you mean? Are you saying they thought the effort was
profitable or that the money was efficiently spent (providing max
value per money spent)?

I think they would answer yes on ballance to both questions. Exceptions
would be places like the US from the French Indian War to the end of
the US Revolution. 

But even after the colonies revolted or where given independance the
British engaged in very lucrative trading with the former colonies.
Five years after the American Revolution England was still the largest
US trading partner.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61075
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>+
>Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance
>which expanded in vacuum. 

Called "gas".

>Once inflated the substance was no longer
>needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
>This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
>disastrous deflation.

The balloons were in sufficiently low orbit that they experienced
some air resistance.  When they were finally punctured, this 
preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
that remained were easily visible for some time before
reentry, though no longer useful as a passive transponder.

The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61076
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

In <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
>$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
>moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
>transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
>more than needed.

>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

But Allen, if you can assume the existence of an SSTO there is no need
to have the contest in the first place.  I would think that what we
want to get out of the contest is the development of some of these
'cheaper' ways of doing things; if they already exist, why flush $1G
just to get someone to go to the Moon for a year?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61077
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
>
>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
Why use a ground launch pad. It is entirely posible to launch from altitude.
This was what the Shuttle was originally intended to do! It might be seriously
cheaper. 

Also, what about bio-engineered CO2 absorbing plants instead of many LOX bottles?
Stick 'em in a lunar cave and put an airlock on the door.

-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61078
From: pearson@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (N. Shirlene Pearson)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:


>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Would you mind posting the responses you get?
I am also interested, and there may be others.

Thanks,

N. Shirlene Pearson
pearson@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61079
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>Among other things, the software people worked very hard to get things
>right for the major pre-flight simulations, and considered a failure
>during those simulations to be nearly as bad as an in-flight failure.
>As a result, the number of major-simulation failures could be counted
>on one hand, and the number of in-flight failures was zero.
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
>(None of the experimenters could afford it.)
>--
>All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>
News-Software: UReply 3.1
X-X-From: Wingert@VNET.IBM.com (Bret Wingert)
References: <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
            <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu>

In <C5uBn5.tz@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.134436.26140@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
 ========================================================================
A couple of points on this thread.

1. We have been using our processes since way before Challenger.  Challenger
   in and of it self did not uncover flaws.

2. What Mr. Spencer says is by and large true.  We have a process that is
   not dependent on "sophisticated tools"  (CASE tools?).  However, tools
   cannot fix a bad process.  Also, tool support for HAL/S (the Shuttle
   Language) is somewhat limited.

3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
   This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.

4. Feel free to call me if you or your organization is interested in more info
   on our software development process.

Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077


Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61080
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1993Apr21.204941.15055@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? 
>
>Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember,
>this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad,
>just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.

Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap into
making statement without thinking them out. 

Wanna guess which today?

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
of a private Titan pad? 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61081
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 04:54:03 GMT, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu said:

nsmca> So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but
nsmca> so was Wilbur and Orville Wright, and quite a few others..

This is a common misconception.  There was nothing "off the wall"
about the Wright Brothers.  They were in correspondance with a number
of other experimenters (Octave Chanute, Lillienthal, etc), they flew
models, they had a wind tunnel.  In short, they were quite mainstream
and were not regarded as odd or eccentric by the community.

I suggest you read The Bishop's Boys or the biography by Harry Gates?
Combs?  (I can never remember which it is--the guy that had the FBOs
and owned Learjet for a while).  These are both in print and easily
obtainable.  The Bishop's Boys is in trade paperback, even.

Even better would be the multi-volume set of the Wrights' writings,
but this is out of print, rare, and hideously expensive.



--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61082
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5w5F8.3LC.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not
>much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km
>inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your
>key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of
>identity).

	I've heard of sillier things, like a well-known utility company
wanting to buy an 'automated' boiler-cleaning system which uses as many
operators as the old system, and which rumour has it costs three million
more per unit. Automation is more 'efficient' although by what scale they are
not saying...

							James Nicoll

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61083
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:


>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.

Yes, and I do everyone else.  Why, you may wonder, don't I do 'Fred'?
Well, that would just be too *obvious*, wouldn't it?  Oh yeah, this
isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61084
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

They must be shipping that good Eau Clair acid to California now.

Tom Freebairn 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61085
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Boom! Whoosh......

In article <C5ut0z.CtG@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1r46ofINNdku@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>>orbiting billboard...
>>
>>I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
>>object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
>>velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
>>you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.  
>Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen),
>you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space
>Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for
>an antisatellite weapon... :-)

Well Henry, we are often reminded how CANADA is not a part of the United States
(yet).  You could have quite a commercial A-SAT, er sky-cleaning service going
in a few years. 

"Toronto SkySweepers:  Clear skies in 48 hours, or your money back."
	   Discount rates available for astro-researchers. 



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61086
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes:
>>> The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit
>>> of Saint Louis venture to his financial backers. But I strongly suspect
>>> that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to realize that much more
>>> was at stake than $25,000. Could it work with the moon? Who are the
>>> far-sighted financial backers of today?
 
>>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.
> Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.
 
  Of course; sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was referring to the fact
that far more aeronautical development took place in the '30's.  For much
of the '20's, the super-abundance of Jennies and OX-5 engines held down the
industry.  By 1926, many of the obsolete WWI aircraft had been retired
and Whirlwind had their power/weight ratio and reliability up to the point
where long-distance flights became practical.  It's important to note that
the Atlantic was flown not once but THREE times in 1927:  Lindbergh,
Chamberlin and Levine, and Byrd's _America_.  "When it's time to railroad,
you railroad."

>>It didn't require gov't to fund these as long as something was known about
>>the potential for profit at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't
>>funded, some were private.
>Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

  Not off the top of my head; I'll have to dig out my reference books again.
However, I will say that the most common arrangement in Prince Henry the
Navigator's Portugal was for the prince to put up part of the money and
merchants to put up the rest.  They profits from the voyage would then be
shared.

>>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.
>A person who puts up $X billion for a moon base is much more likely to do
>it because they want to see it done than because they expect to make money
>off the deal.

  The problem is that the amount of prize money required to inspire a
Moon Base is much larger than any but a handful of individuals or corporations
can even consider putting up.  The Kremer Prizes (human powered aircraft),
Orteig's prize, Lord Northcliffe's prize for crossing the Atlantic (won in
1919 by Alcock and Brown) were MUCH smaller.  The technologies required were
within the reach of individual inventors, and the prize amounts were well
within the reach of a large number of wealthy individuals.  I think that only
a gov't could afford to set up a $1B+ prize for any purpose whatsoever.
  Note that Burt Rutan suggested that NASP could be built most cheaply by
taking out an ad in AvWeek stating that the first company to build a plane
that could take off and fly the profile would be handed $3B, no questions
asked.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61087
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <C5w5un.Bpq@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
> 
> The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for
> more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit.
> For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop
> a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper
> might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less
> ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)  

Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system.  Course, if a
low priced system existed, there might be demand...  

I wonder if there might be some way of structuring a contest to encourage
low cost payload delivery systems.  The accounting methods would probably
be the hardest to work out.  For example, would you allow Rockwell to
'loan' you the engines?  And so forth...

> Any plan for doing
> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
> money in a big way.
> 

This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system. 
You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
system comes on line.

I guess I'd simplify this to say that 'waste' is a slippery concept.  If
your goal is manned lunar exploration in the next 5 years, then perhaps its
not 'wasted' money.  If your goal is to explore the moon for under $500
million, then you should put of this exploration for a decade or so.

Craig


Craig Keithley           |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
Apple Computer, Inc.     |I got no memory of anything at all"
keithley@apple.com       |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61088
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

In article <1993Apr22.164801.7530@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.
>


I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity,
id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61089
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Proton/Centaur?

In article <1r54to$oh@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
>one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
>handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?   

Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Its probably better to   
invest in newer launch systems. I don't think a big cost advantage
for using Russian systems will last for very long (maybe a few years). 
Lockheed would be the place to ask, since you would probably have to buy 
the Proton from them (they market the Proton world wide except Russia). 
They should know a lot about the possibilities, I haven't heard them
propose US launches, so I assume they looked into it and found it 
unprofitable. 

>Now if it uses storables,  

Yes...

>then  how long would it take for the russians
>to equip something at cape york?

Comparable to the Zenit I suppose, but since it looks like
nothing will be built there, you might just as well pick any
spot.

The message is: to launch now while its cheap and while Russia and
Kazakstan are still cooperating. Later, the story may be different.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61090
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5tvL2.1In@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:

>> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

>This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

>If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
>terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
>selling every bit that promises to make money? 

Well, I guess I'm left wondering just who all the 'light fascists'
think *they* are.  Yes, I understand the issues.  I don't even
particularly care for the idea.  But am I the only one that finds the
sort of overreaction above just a *little* questionable?  You must
find things like the Moon *really* obnoxious in their pollution.

A few questions for those frothing at the mouth to ask themselves:

	1) How long is this thing supposed to stay up?  Sounds like it
would have a *huge* drag area, not a lot of mass, and be in a fairly
low orbit.

	2) Just what orbital parameters are we talking about here?
What real impact are we talking about, really?  How many optical
astronomers are *really* going to be impacted?

	3) Which is more important; adding a few extra days of
'seeing' for (very few) optical astronomers or getting the data the
sensors are supposed to return along with the data for large
inflatables (and the potential there for an inflatable space station)?
The choice would seem to be one or the other, since the advertising is
being used to help fund this thing.

	4) If your answer to 3) above was "the astronomers", then feel
free to come up with some other way to fund the (to my mind) more
important research data that would be gained by this WITHOUT SPENDING
ANY MORE OF MY MONEY TO DO IT.  In other words, put up or shut up.

>I guess we really
>deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
>guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

Probably so.  I'm just not sure we agree about who the 'stupid' are. 

>	Another depressed planetary citizen,
>	hoover

Yeah, me too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61091
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!

If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?

It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
have the problems that we do.

[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61092
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

In a message of <Apr 19 04:55>, jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

 >In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) 
 >writes:

MB>                                                             So the
MB> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.

JG>Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Couldn't we just say periapsis or apoapsis?

 

--- msged 2.07

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61093
From: dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

> Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap in
> making statement without thinking them out. 
> 
> Wanna guess which today?
> 
> You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
> of a private Titan pad? 


Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old 
Titan ICBM.  If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need 
of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and 
pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices 
strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - dante@shakala.com 
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61094
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
(I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
moratorium on taxes.

Tom Freebairn 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61095
From: dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
[Lots of trippy stuff deleted]

Wow...  What is this guy smoking and WHERE can I GET SOME?

Dan
-- 
Daniel K. Appelquist|QUANTA is the electronically published and distributed
dan@visix.com       |magazine of science fiction  and  fantasy.   For  more
703-758-2712        |information, send  mail to  quanta+@andrew.cmu.edu or,
703-758-0233 (Fax)  |for back issues, ftp export.acs.cmu.edu, id:anonymous.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61096
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/22/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                           April 16 - 22, 1993


SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 19, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

2.  On April 19, a Command Detector Unit Signal-to-Noise Ratio (CDUSNR) test
and a Radio Frequency Subsystem Automatic Gain Control (RFSAGC) test were
performed using the LGA-1 (Low Gain Antenna #1) over DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter
antenna) and DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna), respectively.  Data analysis
is in process.  These tests are periodically performed to provide detailed
information relative to the telecom command hardware integrity.

3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

4.  On April 21, the first of two suppressed carrier/DSN (Deep Space Network)
advanced receiver characterization tests was performed over DSS-14 (Goldstone
70 meter antenna).  The spacecraft modulation index was varied from 43 degrees
to 90 degrees for a range of ground receiver bandwidth settings.

5.  The AC bus imbalance measurement has not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period but the DC bus imbalance
measurement has.  The AC measurement reads 20 DN (4.5 volts).  The DC
measurement has ranged from 43 DN (4.6 volts) to 138 DN (16.2 volts) and
currently reads 138 DN (16.2 volts).  These measurements are consistent with
the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

6.  The Spacecraft status as of April 22, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  68 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 21 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 5 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 184 hours


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 22, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         169,747,800 km (1.14 AU)
	Distance from Sun           286,967,900 km (1.92 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          91,200 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       532,735,900 km
	Round Trip Light Time       18 minutes, 58 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 22, 1993, a total of 70185 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65077  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5108 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, one real time command was transmitted: one was initiated in
the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command
process. The only command activity was a command to reset the command loss
timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61097
From: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>
>This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone
>know if he's involved?

No.  The idea was suggested around here during discussions of possible
near-term commercial space activities.  One of the folks involved in those
discussions, a
spacecraft engineer named Preston Carter, passed the suggestion on to 
some entreprenurial types, and Mike Lawson is apparently going ahead with
it.  Preston is now at LLNL, and is working with Space Marketing on 
the sensors that might be carried.
>
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. 

Actually, that sounds unlikely.  I don't know what the launch vehicle
would be, but I would expect it to go on a commercial launcher --
certainly not on the Shuttle -- and the fraction of the cost paid to NASA
for, e.g.,  launch support would probably 
cover NASA's incremental costs pretty well.

>>This
>>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
>
>This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
>guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
>build large, inflatable space structures.

No, as noted, LLNL is involved in lightweight sensor design, per 
Clementine and related programs.  I'm sure folks around here would like to 
see a demonstration of a modern inflatable structure, but after all, 
the U.S. did the Echo satellites long ago, and an advertising structure
would not be much closer to an inflatable space station than Echo was
(or a parade balloon, for that matter).
>
>>..........
>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

While I happen to personally dislike the idea, mostly because I've got
a background in astronomy, it's hardly vandalism -- it would be a short-lived
intrusion on the night sky, doing no permanent damage and actually hurting
only a small subset of astronomers.  On the other hand, it would certainly
draw attention to space.   
>
>If this is true, I think it's a great idea.
>
>Learning how to build structures in space in an essential
>step towards space development...

Which, unfortunately, this is not likely to contribute much to.

>If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates
>creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so
>much the better.
>
>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

As far as I know, it's a purely commercial venture.
>
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I gather it is being very seriously discussed with possible advertisers.
Commercial projects, however, generally don't get "funding" -- they
get "customers" -- whether it will have customers remains to be seen.
>
>>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
>
>Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return
>of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...

Nahh.  He's too busy watching for mutant bacteria to notice anything in
the sky :-)

>
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science

Jordin Kare	jtk@s1.gov	Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[These are my personal views only and do not represent official statements
or positions of LLNL, the University of California, or the U.S. DOE.]

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61098
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?

Phil G. Fraering writes:

> Mark Brader writes:

>> Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>> me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>> has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>> Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>> Same person?

> No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
> is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

You may change that to 100% certainty.  But to clarify, Spacewatch is a
University of Arizona project using a telescope of the Steward Observatory
located on Kitt Peak.  It is not associated with Kitt Peak National
Observatory, other than sharing a mountain.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61099
From: howard@sharps.astro.wisc.edu (Greg Howard)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


Actually, the "ether" stuff sounded a fair bit like a bizzare,
qualitative corruption of general relativity.  nothing to do with
the old-fashioned, ether, though.  maybe somebody could loan him
a GR text at a low level.

didn't get much further than that, tho.... whew.


greg

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61100
From: Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>Now, Space Marketing
>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>orbit.  NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.

How could this possibly be "environmental vandalism" when there is no
"environment" to vandalize up there?

Since the advertising "is just to help defray costs", it's certainly no
surprise that "the taxpayers would bear most of the expense".  Sounds
like a good idea to me, since the taxpayers would bear _all_ of the
expense if they didn't do the advertising.

>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky?

Great idea, they should have done it long ago.

>What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
as it goes zipping across the sky.

>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?

No doubt.  People are always looking for something to protest about, so
it would be no surprise.

>Really, really depressed.

Well, look on the, er, bright side.  Imagine the looks on the faces of
people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

--

Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61101
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Big amateur rockets

pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:

>I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
>the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
>science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
>It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.

The company was probably "Public Missiles, Inc" of Michigan.

>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.

Yup.

>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
>Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.

Nope, it's not illegal. It is, however, closely regulated. In order to 
purchase and use the big rocket motors required, it is necessary to be
one of the following:
a) An employee of a government agency.
b) An employee or student at a university doing research involving rockets.
c) A member or representative of an educational organization involved in
research or other uses of rockets. There are two such organizations: 
The Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry.
Members of either organization must demonstrate proficiency in construction
and flight before they are allowed to purchase large motors on their own.

The FAA will issue a waiver of its regulations, upon request, to any 
organization which can persuade them it has taken adequate precautions 
to avoid conflicts with aircraft. The usual stipulations are:
- Only operation up to a specified ceiling is allowed. Depending on the
location, this ceiling may be from 5000 to 50000 feet AGL. 
- The operator of the rocket is responsible for avoiding any aircraft
within the operating radius around the launch site.
- Flight into clouds or beyond visual range in haze is expressly prohibited.
- The FAA will provide a NOTAM informing other users of the airspace that
unmanned rocket operations are taking place at the specified place and time.

Most of the launches that are held (and there are dozens of them every year)
are held in areas where air traffic is relatively light, such as over the
western deserts (the Black Rock Desert north of Reno is particularly popular
since it is 25 x 150 miles of *nothing to hit* on the ground).

The two rocketry associations test and approve motors for their members'
use, to insure safety. Depending on motor size, the launcher setback is
from 50 to 500 or more feet. 

By the way, rockets under 1 lb and powered by an "F" motor are exempt from
most Federal regulations on unmanned rockets anyway. See FAR 101, Subpart
C, for details.

As for recovery...although the higher altitude rockets can reach up to
50,000 feet, most of them only get to 2,000 to 5,000 feet. The typical
rocket is 2 to 6 inches in diameter, and carries a 3 to 6 foot parachute,
or multiple parachutes, depending on the payload. Many rockets also carry
either a small transmitter or an audio sounder--particularly at launches
in the eastern US, where there are more obstructions.

Camera, telemetry transmitter, and video payloads are becoming quite common.

>And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.

Why not? It's a lot of fun...check out the traffic on rec.models.rockets
for information about the model (3 lb and under) and high power (everything
bigger) rocket hobbies. As with all dangerous activities, the key is to
practice safety. I've been flying consumer rockets ranging up to 4-5 lbs
takeoff weight for 27 years, and still have all my extremities intact.

>-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas

That's another thing. NO EXPLOSIVE WARHEADS OF ANY KIND ARE ALLOWED ON THESE
ROCKETS. NONE! Please forgive me for shouting, but that's one of the biggest
misconceptions people have about our hobby. 

>/*            Just remember, you *WILL* die someday.             */
True. But it will not be related to the rocket hobby, unless I get 
hit while crossing a road with a rocket in my hand. 
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61102
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues writes:

> 	Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
> beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
> named the object Karla.

The name is a working name only; quite unofficial.  The formal designation
is 1993 FW.

> 	The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
> should be composed by rocks and ices.
> 
> 	Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
> new planet or a Kuiper object?

It's most likely a Kuiper Belt object, with an estimated diameter of
290 km.  The orbit hasn't been determined well enough yet to say much
more about it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61103
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <1r6rn3INNn96@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>of a private Titan pad? 

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
build something HLV-sized anyway.

Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
would have far better cost-effectiveness.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61104
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?

In article <keithley-220493104229@kip-37.apple.com> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
>Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
>contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
>there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
>demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system...

You're assuming that the low-cost delivery system has to be a separate
project.  But why?  If you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
in hopes of winning a billion-dollar prize, it is *cheaper* to develop
your own launch system, charging its entire development cost against
your contest entry, than to try to do it with existing launchers.  No
other demand is necessary.

>> Any plan for doing
>> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
>> money in a big way.
>
>This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
>words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
>navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system. 
>You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
>folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
>system comes on line.

You're assuming that it's going to take a decade to build a new launch
system.  But why?  The Saturn V took less than six years, depending on
exactly when you date its start.  Pegasus took about three from project
start to first flight.  Before SDIO chickened out on orbital development,
the target date for an orbital DC-Y flight was 1996.  If you really want
speed, consider that the first prototypes of the Thor missile (still in
service as the core of the Delta launcher) shipped to the USAF less
than 18 months after the development go-ahead.

One of the most pernicious myths in this whole business is the belief
that you can't build a launcher without taking ten years and spending
billions of dollars.  It isn't true and never was.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61105
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race

In article <3HgF3B3w165w@shakala.com> dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) writes:
>Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old 
>Titan ICBM...

Nope, you're confusing separate programs.  Atlas was the first-generation
US ICBM; Titan I was the second-generation one; Titan II, which all the
Titan launchers are based on, was the third-generation heavy ICBM.  There
was essentially nothing in common between these three programs.

(Yes, *three* programs.  Despite the similarity of names, Titan I and
Titan II were completely different missiles.  They didn't even use the
same fuels, never mind the same launch facilities.)

>If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need 
>of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and 
>pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices 
>strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

Sorry, the Titan silos (a) can't handle the Titan launchers with their
large SRBs, (b) can't handle *any* sort of launcher without massive
violations of normal range-safety rules (nobody cares about such things
in the event of a nuclear war, but in peacetime they matter), and (c) were
scrapped years ago.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61106
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
>of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
>to sunrise and sunset times.

Sorry, not so -- the changes in sunrise and sunset times are not
quite synchronized.  For example, neither the earliest sunrise nor the
latest sunset comes on the longest day of the year.

You can derive day length from sunrise and sunset times, but not
vice-versa.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61107
From: gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!

In article <1993Apr21.001555.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
   Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
   Why not??

Because to be any use as a nav point you need to know -exactly- where
it is, which means you either nail it to something that doesn't move
or you watch it all the time.  Neither of which is possible on a
deactivated spacecraft.  Then you have to know exactly how far away
from it you are; this may or may not be possible with the hardware on
board. 

Apart from which, there is absolutely no need for navigation beacons.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61108
From: wiml@stein2.u.washington.edu (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>Besides the mechanical problems of moving so dense a medium in oan out
>of the lungs (diaphragm fatigue, etc.), is there likely to be a problem
>with the mixture?  I mean, since the lungs never expel all the air in
>them, the inhaled air has to mix pretty quickly with the residual air in
>the lungs to provide a useful partial pressure of oxygen, right?  Would
>this mixing be substantially faster/slower at the pressures we're
>talking about?

  There was an interesting article in Scientific American some time ago
about breathing liquid. (It was a few months before _The Abyss_ came out.)
As far as I can remember, they mentioned three things that were difficult
to do at once with a substitute breathing fluid:
  - low viscosity --- if it's too difficult to force the fluid in & out 
    of the lungs, you can't extract enough oxygen to power your own
    breathing effort (let alone anything else)

  - diffusion rate --- obviously, not all the air in your lungs is
    expelled when you breathe out; and the part that isn't expelled
    is the part that's nearest the walls of the alveoli. (alveolus?)
    So the trip from the blood vessels to the new air has to be done
    by diffusion of the gas through the fluid. Apparently oxygen
    tends to diffuse more readily than CO2, so even if you can get enough
    oxygen in, you might not be able to get enough CO2 out.

  - oxygen/CO2 capacity --- you have to be able to dissolve enough
    gas per unit volume. 

  Oh, and of course, your new breathing fluid must not irritate the lungs
or interfere with their healing or anything like that... 

--
Wim Lewis, wiml@u.washington.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61109
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In <C5w5zJ.HHq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Greg Hennessy writes:
>In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>#The better question  should be.
>#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
>#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.
>
>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
>changing them to a seperate agency help anything?
>
How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
able to accept donations to keep craft operational.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61110
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
> such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
> granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
> rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
> moratorium on taxes.
> 
> Tom Freebairn 


Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US
Government? 
Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?

If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you? 

Why can't a small company or corp or organization go an explore the great
beyond of space? what right does earth have to say what is legal and what is
not.. Maybe I am a few years ahead on this.. It is liek the old Catholic Church 
stating which was Portugals and what was Spains, and along came the Reformation
and made it all null and void.. 

What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your
services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what
ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..
Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason
or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or
whatever..
There are nations in the World who are not part of the UN, got to them and
offer your services and such.. I know that sound crazy, but. is it..
Also once you have the means to mine the moon (or whatever) then just do it.
The UN if done right can be made to be so busy with something else, they will
not care.. 
If your worried about the US, do the same thing..

Why be limited by the short sighted people of earth.. After all they have many
other things to worry about that if someone is mining the Moon or MArs or what
ever..
Basically what I am saying is where is that drive of yeasteryears to go a
little bit farther out, to do jus ta  little bit more, and to tell the crown to
piss off.. If my ancestors thought the way many today think, Id have been born
in Central Europe just north of the Black Sea..

I just read a good book, "Tower of the Gods" Interesting..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61111
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
> 
> they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like
> the moon when theyare done.
> 
> pat
===
I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).

I am talking the guy who coem to Nome evry year, sets up his tent on the beach
(the beach was washed away last year) and sets up his/her sluice box and goes
at it "mining".
I know the large corps, such as Alaska Gold Company, might complain to..

My opinions are what I learn at the local BS table..

My original thing/idea was that the way to get space mining was to allow the
eco-freaks thier way.. As they have done with other mineral development.
You can't in many places can't go to the bathroom in the woods without some
form of regulation covering it.. 

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61112
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Billboard/Station/Space Dock?

Seems that the Mile-Long Billboard and any other inflateble space
object/station or what ever have the same problems. (other than being a little
bit different than the "normal" space ideas, such as trusses and shuttles)

But also dag and such.. Why not combine the discussion of how and fesibility to
the same topic?

I personnelly liek the idea of a billboard in space. But problem. How do you
service it? fly a shuttle/DC-1 to near it and then dismount and "fly" to it?
Or what?? or havign a special docking section for shuttle/DC-1 docking?

Also what if the billboard springs a leak? Self sealing and such??


Just thinking (okay rambling)..

Also why must the now inflated billboard, not be covered in the inside by a
harder substance (such as a polymer or other agent) and then the now "hard"
billboard would be a now giant docking structure/space dock/station??

Or am I missing something here.. (probably am!?)
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61113
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

Are breathable liquids possible?

I remember seeing an old Nova or The Nature of Things where this idea was
touched upon (it might have been some other TV show).  If nothing else, I know
such liquids ARE possible because...

They showed a large glass full of this liquid, and put a white mouse (rat?) in
it.  Since the liquid was not dense, the mouse would float, so it was held down
by tongs clutching its tail.  The thing struggled quite a bit, but it was
certainly held down long enough so that it was breathing the liquid.  It never
did slow down in its frantic attempts to swim to the top.

Now, this may not have been the most humane of demonstrations, but it certainly
shows breathable liquids can be made.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61114
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Subject: Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?

<1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and
>Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
>and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
>that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
>dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 

Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh?

The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most
pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous
offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.

You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by
failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here)
which would give your imagination wings.

Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of 
the Body Snatchers_:

"Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61115
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

I posted this over in sci.astro, but it didn't make it here.
Thought you all would like my wonderful pithy commentary :-)

What? You guys have never seen the Goodyear blimp polluting
the daytime and nightime skies?

Actually an oribital sign would only be visible near
sunset and sunrise, I believe.  So pollution at night
would be minimal.

If it pays for space travel, go for it.  Those who don't
like spatial billboards can then head for the pristine
environment of Jupiter's moons :-)

---
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61116
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
> 
> Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
> please try to remember that there are more human activities than
> those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
> Priesthood.

Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may 
 freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

-- 
* Fred Baube (tm)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61117
From: agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

Thanks, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Belle Vue Court    |"They're unfriendly, which    | Home: 0684 564438
32 Belle Vue Terrace | is fortunate, really. They'd | Away: 0628 784351
Great Malvern        | be difficult to like."       | Work: 0628 794137
Worcestershire       |                              |
WR14 4PZ             | Kerr Avon, Blake's Seven     | Temporary: agc@bnr.ca
England              |                              | Permanent: alan@gid.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61118
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr23.000021.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>> [...]  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
>> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
>> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
>> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
>> moratorium on taxes.
>> 
>> Tom Freebairn 
>
>
>Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US
>Government? 

Tom's right about this.  It's only a grantable right if the granter has
the will and the ability to stop anyone from taking it away from you.
Never mind the legal status.

>Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
>The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?

Nick's right about this.  It's always easier to obtain forgiveness than
permission.  Not many people remember that Britain's King George III
expressly forbid his american subjects to cross the alleghany/appalachian
mountains.  Said subjects basically said, "Stop us if you can."  He
couldn't.

>If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
>stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you? 

That's how the USA started.  Of course, that's also how the Bolivarian
Republic started (ca. 1800-1820) in central america.  It didn't have
quite the staying power of the USA.  I'm sure there are more examples of
going far away and then ignoring authority, but none jump to mind right
now.

>What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your
>services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what
>ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..

Or do as some whaling nations do: define whatever activities you want to
carry out as "scientific research" which just coincidentally requires
the recovery of megatonnes of minerals (or whatever), then go at it.

>Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason
>or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or
>whatever..

Lute Keyser had just this sort of arrangement with Libya (I think) in
the late '70's for his commercial space launch project (one of the very
earliest).  It was killed by Soviet propaganda about NATO cruise
missiles in Africa, which made Libya renege on the arrangement.


Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61119
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In my last post I referred to Michael Adams as "Nick."  Completely my
error; Nick Adams was a film and TV actor from the '50's and early '60's
(remember Johnny Yuma, The Rebel?).  He was from my part of the country,
and Michael's email address of "nmsca[...]" probably helped confuse things
in my mind.  Purely user headspace error on my part.  Sorry.

Doug Loss

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61120
From: ven@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Van E. Neie)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr22.180630.18313@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> pearson@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (N. Shirlene Pearson) writes:
>jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>
>>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Would you mind posting the responses you get?
>I am also interested, and there may be others.
>
>Thanks,
>
>N. Shirlene Pearson
>pearson@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu

There is an excellent software program called Astro.calc that does that and
much more.  The latest address I have is

	MMI Corporation
	PO Box 19907
	Baltimore, MD  21211
	Phone (301) 366-1222


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van E. Neie                                      ven@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu
Purdue University                                neie@purccvm.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61121
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Space Station Redesign Chief Resigns for Health Reasons

Writer Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post that Joseph Shea, the 
head of the space station redesign has resigned for health reasons.

Shea was hospitalized shortly after his selection in February.  He returned
yesterday to lead the formal presentation to the independent White House panel.
Shea's presentation was rambling and almost inaudible.

Shea's deputy, former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, will take over the effort.

Goldin asserted that the redesign effort is on track.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61122
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Clementine mission name

> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
> Old pioneer song from the 1850's or so goes as follows:
>
>   "In a cavern, in a canyon,
>    Excavating for a mine,
>    Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
>    And his daughter, CLEMENTINE"
>
> Chorus:
>   "Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
>    Oh my darling Clementine.
>    You are lost and gone forever,
>    Oh my darling Clementine."


        Let us hope that the performance of the spacecraft follows the
sentiments of the first verse (miner) rather than the second (lost and gone
forever).

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61123
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?)

In article <C5xp0K.G79@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
> <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>> Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
>>and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
>>that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
>>dreams all the knowledge is worthless.. 
> 
> Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh?
> 
> The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most
> pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous
> offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.

Well said.
 
> You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by
> failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here)
> which would give your imagination wings.
> 
> Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of 
> the Body Snatchers_:
> 
> "Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"

Okay, Del, so Michael was being unfair, but you are being unfair back.  
He is taking college courses now, I presume he is studying hard, and
his postings reveal that he is *somewhat* hip to the technical issues
of astronautics.  Plus, he is attentively following the erudite
discourse of the Big Brains who post to sci.space; is it not
inevitable that he will get a splendid technical education from
reading the likes of you and me? [1]

Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a
fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up
fast.  I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a
technical education to follow them up.  Too bad I wound up in an
assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day...
(-:

[1] Though rumors persist that Del and I are both pseudonyms of Fred
McCall.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June. 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | You bring your view-graphs, 
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and I'll bring my rocketship."  
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61124
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca>, agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes...
>In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.
> 
>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?
> 

The Command Loss Timer is part of the fault protection scheme of the
spacecraft.  If the Command Loss Timer ever countdowns to zero, then the
spacecraft assumes it has lost communications with Earth and will go 
through a set of predetermined steps to try to regain contact.  The
Command Loss Timer is set to 264 hours and reset about once a week during 
the cruise phase, and is set to a lower value during an encounter phase.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61125
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
>exploration.
>
>Basically get the eco-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth.

They aren't going to leave a loophole as glaring as space mining.  Quite a
few of those people are, when you come right down to it, basically against
industrial civilization.  They won't stop with shutting down the mines here;
that is only a means to an end for them now.

The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his revolution
is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without radical change.
Telling people that paradise can be attained without the revolution is
treason of the vilest kind.

Trying to harness these people to support spaceflight is like trying to
harness a buffalo to pull your plough.  He's got plenty of muscle, all
right, but the furrow will go where he wants, not where you want.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61126
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <19930423.010821.639@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
>>changing them to a seperate agency help anything?
>>
>How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
>able to accept donations to keep craft operational.

The problem is, you can't raise adequate amounts of money that way.
The Viking Fund tried.  They did succeed, in a way, but only because
of the political impact of their fundraising.  The actual amount of
money they raised was fairly inconsequential; it would not have kept
the Viking lander going by itself.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61127
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:
>|> ... a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer ...
>
>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

If I'm not mistaken, this is the usual sort of precaution against loss of
communications.  That timer is counting down continuously; if it ever hits
zero, that means Galileo hasn't heard from Earth in a suspiciously long
time and it may be Galileo's fault... so it's time to go into a fallback
mode that minimizes chances of spacecraft damage and maximizes chances
of restoring contact.  I don't know exactly what-all Galileo does in such
a situation, but a common example is to switch receivers, on the theory
that maybe the one you're listening with has died.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61128
From: jbreed@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

In article <C5ros0.uy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.

Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
our view of them either.  What am I missing?

	Jim

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61129
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion...)

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu, University of Alaska Fairbanks writes:

[A GOOD DEAL OF HEALTHY IF NOT DEEPLY THOUGHT OUT IDEALISM DELETED
BELOW.]

>Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
>[...] Can the truly inforce it? [...] 

If their parent company does business (and they will) on the face of the Earth
then they are vulnerable to govt. sanctions.  Yes they can be stopped.

>If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
>stop you from doing it. [...]   

For the first 100 - 500 (IMHO) years nobody will have to.  The colonists will
be too dependent on Earth too pull it off.  Eventually they will, history
shows us that.

>Also once you have the means to mine the moon (or whatever) then just do it. 
>The UN if done right can be made to be so busy with something else, they will
>not care [...]

What exactly do you mean here?  Terrorism?  Start an international incident
so your dream can come true?  Crack a few eggs to make the omelet?  This
sounds fairly irresponsible.


>Basically what I am saying is where is that drive of yeasteryears to go a
>little bit farther out, to do jus ta  little bit more, and to tell the crown to
>piss off.. If my ancestors thought the way many today think, Id have been born
>in Central Europe just north of the Black Sea..        

Again, the tie that binds will be much stronger for space colonists than
any immigrants that have gone before.  Even those intrepid Asian
explorers that crossed the Bering land bridge did not have to carry their
air on their backs.

==    
>Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked  

Keep the dream alive, maybe dream it a little more cogently.

Tom Freebairn   | There once was a man
		| Who built a boat
		| To sail away in.
		| It sank.
		|        J.P. Donleavy
			 _Fairy Tale of New York_ (maybe?)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61130
From: nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson)
Subject: COMET...when did/will she launch?

COMET (Commercial Experiment Transport) is to launch from Wallops Island
Virginia and orbit Earth for about 30 days. It is scheduled to come down
in the Utah Test & Training Range, west of Salt Lake City, Utah. I saw
a message in this group toward the end of March that it was to launch 
on March 27. Does anyone know if it launched on that day, or if not, 
when it is scheduled to launch and/or when it will come down.

I would also be interested in what kind(s) of payload(s) are onboard.

Thanks for your help.

Norman Anderson          nanderso@endor.sim.es.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61131
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)



INteresting question about Galileo.

Galileo's HGA  is stuck.   

The HGA was left closed,  because galileo  had a venus flyby.

If the HGA were pointed att he sun,  near venus,  it would
cook the foci elements.

question:  WHy couldn't Galileo's  course manuevers have been
designed such that the HGA  did not ever do a sun point.?

After all,  it would normally be aimed at earth anyway?

or would it be that an emergency situation i.e. spacecraft safing
and seek might have caused an HGA sun point?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61132
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Ed Campion
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                             April 23, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1780)

Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone:  713/483-5111)

RELEASE:  93-76

HUBBLE TELESCOPE SERVICING MISSION SCHEDULED FOR ELEVEN DAYS

	The December flight of Endeavour on Space Shuttle mission STS-61 to
service the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been scheduled as an 11 day
mission designed to accommodate a record five spacewalks with the capability
for an additional two, if needed.

	The decision to schedule five extravehicular activities, or EVAs, was
reached following extensive evaluations of underwater training, maneuver times
required using the Shuttle's robot arm based on software simulations and actual
EVA tasks on previous missions.

	"Basically what we've done by going to five EVAs rather than three is
to repackage our margin so that we have the capability to respond to the
dynamics, or unknowns, of spacewalks," Mission Director Randy Brinkley said.
"It improves the probabilities for mission success while providing added
flexibility and adaptability for reacting to real-time situations."

	In laying out the specific tasks to be completed on each of the
spacewalks, officials have determined that changing out the gyros, solar arrays
and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera (WF/PC) and installing the Corrective
Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR) are priority objectives
during the mission.

	"When we looked at accomplishing all of the tasks, highest through
lowest priority, and recognizing that the major tasks -- gyros, solar arrays,
WF/PC and COSTAR -- would consume most of the time set aside for each
spacewalk, five EVAs were deemed appropriate," said Milt Heflin, Lead Flight
Director for the mission.

	While the five spacewalks will be unprecedented, the use of two
alternating spacewalk teams will alleviate placing more stress on the crew than
previous missions requiring two, three or four EVAs.

	"We have paid close attention to lessons learned during previous
spacewalks and factored these into our timeline estimates for five EVAs,"
Heflin said.  "In planning for all Space Shuttle missions, it is necessary to
formulate a work schedule that represents as realistic a timeline as possible
to accomplish the mission objectives."

	Planning currently calls for at least five water tank training sessions
that include support from the Mission Control Center, called joint integrated
simulations, lasting between 10 and 36 hours.  In addition, many stand alone
underwater training "runs" will practice individual tasks in each spacewalk.

	Various refinements to the specific tasks on each spacewalk will be
made based on actual training experience during the months prior to the
mission.  Also, lessons learned from other spacewalks leading up to the flight
will be valuable in assisting the STS-61 crew in its training techniques.

	Endeavour's June flight and Discovery's July mission both will include
spacewalks to evaluate some of the unique tools to be used on the HST mission.
The evaluations will help in better understanding the differences between the
actual weightlessness of space and the ground training in the water tanks at
the Johnson Space Center, Houston, and the Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Ala.

	Also, the inflight spacewalking experiences will assist in gaining
further insight into the time required for the various tasks and expand the
experience levels among the astronaut corps, the flight controllers and
trainers.

	Designed to be serviced by a Space Shuttle crew, Hubble was built with
grapple fixtures and handholds to assist in the capture and repair procedures.

	The telescope was launched aboard Discovery in April 1990.  At that
time the NASA mixed fleet manifest showed the first revisit mission to HST in
1993 to change out science instruments and make any repairs that may have
become necessary.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61133
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?


Henry,

didn't the Little Joe  and Big Joe  get built in under a year?
6 months for little Joe,  and 12 Months for Big Joe?

i thought i saw something on that for  a old mercury film.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61134
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
>> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
>===
>I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
>miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
>people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
>mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).


Lot's of these small miners  are no longer miners.  THey are people living
rent free on Federal land,  under the claim of being a miner.  The facts are
many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining,  do not
often even live their full time,  and do fotentimes do a fair bit
of environmental damage.

These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's  when the west was
uninhabited  and were designed to bring people into the frontier.  Times change
people change.  DEAL.  you don't have a constitutional right to live off
the same industry forever.  Anyone who claims the have a right to their
job in particular,  is spouting nonsense.   THis has been a long term
federal welfare program,  that has outlived it's usefulness.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61135
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]


Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
in Somalia!)

To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)

-- 
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet! 



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61136
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

In <1r6ub0$mgl@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr22.164801.7530@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.
>>


>I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity,
>id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.

Careful.  Making statements about how solid state is (generally) more
reliable than analog will get you a nasty follow-up from Tommy Mac or
Pat.  Wait a minute; you *are* Pat.  Pleased to see that you're not
suffering from the bugaboos of a small mind.  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61137
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:

>In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

>This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
>someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

The Command Loss Timer is a timer that does just what its name says;
it indicates to the probe that it has lost its data link for receiving
commands.  Upon expiration of the Command Loss Timer, I believe the
probe starts a 'search for Earth' sequence (involving antenna pointing
and attitude changes which consume fuel) to try to reestablish
communications.  No-ops are sent periodically through those periods
when there are no real commands to be sent, just so the probe knows
that we haven't forgotten about it.

Hope that's clear enough to be comprehensible. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61138
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
one  should be called 'Smiley'.

							James Nicoll


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61139
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>>Now, Space Marketing

>>What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>>it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

>I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
>effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
>but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only

When I was at the Texas Star Party a few years ago, the sky was so dark
that Venus did, indeed, cause light pollution until it set.

Even if the billboard were dark it could cause a problem.  Imagine observing an
object and halfway through your run, your object was occulted!

I would guess that most of the people stating positive opinions are not 
fanatically serious observers.

It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
 
George Krumins
-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  George Krumins                                                              |
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                                   |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61140
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: SIRTF Mission is Still Alive

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

SIRTF is still very much in business

By Mark Whalen
     In these times of extra-tight NASA budgets, the very
survival of a number of missions has been uncertain. But thanks
to major design refinements implemented in recent months, JPL's
Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) -- a major project
considered to be in trouble a couple of years ago -- is "alive
and well," according to Project Scientist Michael Werner.
     A lighter spacecraft, revised orbit and shorter mission have
added up to a less expensive project with "tremendous scientific
power" and a bright future, said Werner.
     Designed as a follow-up to the highly successful Infrared
Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) and Cosmic Background Explorer
(COBE) missions, SIRTF -- a cryogenically cooled observatory for
infrared astronomy from space -- is scheduled for launch in 2000
or 2001 if plans proceed as scheduled.
     IRAS' pioneering work in space-based infrared astronomy 10
years ago allowed astronomers to view the Milky Way as never
before and revealed, among other things, 60,000 galaxies and 25
comets. It provided a sky survey 1,000 times more sensitive than
any previously available from ground-based observations. COBE has
measured the infrared and microwave background radiation on large
angular scales, and revealed new facts about the early universe.
     But to illuminate SIRTF's potential, Jim Evans, JPL's
manager of Astrophysics and Fundamental Physics Pre-Projects,
recently said that the project is "1,000 to 1 million times more
capable than IRAS," based on technological advances in infrared
detector arrays.
     However, despite the enormous strides in infrared
exploration SIRTF promised, and the fact that it was cited as the
highest priority new initiative for all of astronomy in the 1990s
(by the National Academy of Sciences), it took a "diet or die"
directive from NASA Headquarters last year to keep the project
going, according to Werner.
     The project is now known as Atlas SIRTF, based on the key
factor in its new design: The satellite will orbit the sun
instead of the Earth, permitting the use of an Atlas rocket
launch instead of the formerly proposed and heavier Titan. "The
main advantage of the solar orbit is that you can use all of your
launch capability for boosting the payload -- you don't have to
carry up a second rocket to circularize the orbit," Werner said.
The other advantage to a solar orbit, he said, is that "it's in a
better thermal environment, away from the heat of the Earth."
     Additional major changes in SIRTF's redesign include
shortening the mission from five to three years and building a
spacecraft that is less than half as heavy as in the original
plan -- Atlas SIRTF will weigh 2,470 kilograms (5,400 pounds)
compared to Titan SIRTF's 5,500 kilograms (12,100 pounds).
     All of that adds up to "a less stressful launch
environment," Werner said, and a cost savings of more than $200
million for the launch, in addition to increased savings in the
design of the smaller, less massive spacecraft.
     Werner said SIRTF's redesign came as a result of Congress'
telling NASA "you're trying to do too many things. If you want us
to support SIRTF, which is a good project, develop a plan to see
how it fits into (NASA's) overall strategy."
     Shortly thereafter, SIRTF was named as NASA's highest
priority "flagship" scientific mission by the interdisciplinary
Space Sciences Advisory Committee, in addition to the blessing
from the National Academy of Sciences.
     While the spacecraft and its instruments required descoping
to keep the project alive, SIRTF's major scientific contribution
always promised to come about from its advanced infrared detector
arrays, which will allow images to be developed "tens of
thousands of times faster" than before, according to Evans.
     "Up until a couple of years ago," Werner said, "all infrared
astronomy was done with single detectors -- or very small arrays
of individually assembled detectors. Since then, the Department
of Defense has developed a program to produce arrays of tens or
hundreds of thousands of detectors, rather than just a few, and
those are very well suited for use on SIRTF."
     Werner noted that in addition to dealing with budget
pressures, Congress is currently watching NASA projects with an
eye out for any "technological spinoff."
     "On that question, I think we have some things to say," he
said, "because the detectors we're using are straight off various
military developments. Also, SIRTF will be built by the U.S.
aerospace industry, and it's a real technological and engineering
challenge in addition to being a tremendous scientific project.
     "SIRTF will be used by the entire astronomical community,"
Werner added, but the revised three-year mission "puts a premium
on observing time. We have to educate the user community and
develop a program that involves early surveys and quick
turnaround of the data."
     Werner said the downsizing of the project required a
reduction in scope and complexity of SIRTF's three instruments --
the infrared spectrograph, infrared array camera and multiband
imaging photometer. However, these reductions will only result in
losses of efficiency rather than capability, he said.
     The project hopes to start a "Phase B" activity in 1995,
which will provide a detailed concept for development and design.
Building the hardware would begin about two years later.
     Projected cost estimates, Evans said, are $850 million-$950
million.
     "I am very optimistic about SIRTF," he said. "It will
provide a tremendous return for the investment."
     Werner added that an additional benefit from the project
will be the "enrichment of our intellectual and cultural
environment. People on the street are very interested in
astronomy ... black holes, the possibility of life on other
planets, the origin of the universe ... and those are the kind of
questions SIRTF will help answer."
                              ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61141
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

Cosmologist Stephen Hawking tours Lab

By Karre Marino
     Some 15 years after his first visit to JPL, Prof. Stephen
Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge
University and author of "A Brief History of Time," returned to
the Lab April 5.
     On a tour hosted by JPL Chief Scientist Dr. Moustafa Chahine
and Merle McKenzie, manager of the International Affairs Office,
Hawking visited a variety of facilities, met with Lab Director
Dr. Edward Stone and various project scientists and managers, and
felt "like royalty," he said. Hawking, whose theories attempt to
explain the origin of distant galaxies, black holes and alternate
dimensions, wanted to re-visit JPL, he explained, "because while
I'm most interested in those things in space that are farther
away, I know that here is where the first steps are taken."
     Hawking, who was accompanied by his family, two graduate
students and his aides, began the tour in von Karman Auditorium,
as David Evans, deputy assistant Lab director in the Office of
Flight Projects, and Dr. Arden Albee, Mars Observer's project
scientist, briefed him on current and past flight projects.
     Voyager was pointed out to him, with special attention paid
to a gold plate with a series of engraved images. Should
extraterrestrial life stumble upon the spacecraft, Evans noted,
they would find a variety of images that would explain something
of Earth. The professor asked if we were still communicating with
the spacecraft, and Evans affirmed that we are.
     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes
describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer
to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five
years before, described the professor as "a living miracle of the
power of the brain. He's miraculous, and he has such a good sense
of humor."
     The next stop, a demonstration on scientific data
visualization in Section 384's Digital Image Animation Lab,
entertained and delighted the group, as everyone donned goggles
to view 3-D images of Mars. Project Scientist Dr. Eric De Jong
showed off the latest data -- a comet that had only recently been
discovered in orbit close to Jupiter. Hawking was curious about
its composition, and as he was shown how images are developed, he
asked several questions on their interpretation.
     Norman Haynes, ALD, Office of Telecommunications and Data
Acquisition, briefed the professor on the Space Flight Operations
Facility, and then Hawking spoke with Stone.
     The day ended with two technical discussions of particular
interest to the professor. Technical Group Leader Dr. Frank
Estabrook and Senior Research Scientist Hugo Wahlquist described
a three-spacecraft gravity wave experiment, currently under way.
Then planetary astronomer Dr. Richard Terrile explained the
philosophy and plans for extra solar system planetary detection.
     The Hawking party, which had been visiting Southern
California for five weeks, was headquartered at Caltech, and
planned to leave for England within a few weeks after the Lab
tour. Upon departing, the Cambridge-based scientist promised
Chahine that he would return to JPL for another visit.
                          ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61142
From: simon@cyklop.nada.kth.se (Simon Tardell)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:

>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

>I would appreciate any advice.

I once thought it would be easiest fitting a sine to the times. But not.
This gave  discrepancy of upto six minutes. If you fit a sine series
you'll get a very good fit after just three or four terms though. This
presumably has to do with the eccentricity of the Earths orbit.

-- 
Simon Tardell, Ff88, simon@nada.kth.se              V}ga v{gra cgs!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61143
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: JPL's VLBI Project Meets with International Space Agencies

From the "JPL Universe"
April 23, 1993

VLBI project meets with international space agencies

By Ed McNevin
     Members of JPL's Space Very Long Baseline Interferometry
(VLBI) project team recently concluded a week-long series of
meetings with officials from Russia and Japan.
     The meetings were part of "Space VLBI Week" held at JPL in
early March and were intended to maintain cooperation between
international space agencies participating in the development of
the U.S. Space VLBI Project, a recently approved JPL flight
project set for launch in 1995.
     U.S. Space VLBI will utilize two Earth-orbiting spacecraft
-- the Japanese VSOP (VLBI Space Observing Program) satellite
with its 8-meter radio telescope, and a Russian RADIOASTRON
10-meter satellite. Both spacecraft will team up with
ground-based radio telescopes located around the world to create
a radio telescope network that astronomers hope will expand radio
telescope observing power by a factor of 10.
     Japan's VSOP satellite will use a limited six-hour orbit to
conduct imaging science, while the Russian RADIOASTRON spacecraft
will exploit a larger, 28-hour Earth orbit to conduct exploratory
radio astronomy. Each satellite will point at a source target for
roughly 24 hours, while approximately 20 ground-based radio
telescopes will simultaneously point at the same source object
while within view on Earth.
     According to Dr. Joel Smith, JPL's project manager for the
U.S. Space VLBI, meetings like those held at JPL will permit
Japan and Russia, who have little previous experience in radio
interferometry, to establish working relationships with the radio
astronomy communities that will be vital during the complex
observations required by the Space VLBI project.
     "One of our main activities is developing the methodology
for international coordination, because the two spacecraft
simultaneously rely on the corresponding tracking stations while
using the ground-based radio telescopes to observe the same
celestial objects," said Smith.
     Three new tracking antennas are being built at DSN
facilities and other three other tracking facilities located in
Japan, Russia and Green Bank, W.Va. This global network of
ground-based radio telescopes will use precision clocks and
high-speed recorders to collect observation data and forward the
information to a correlator located at the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, N.M. The correlator will
combine and process data, then make it available to mission
investigators in Moscow, Tokyo, and JPL via electronic mail.
     Smith is optimistic that the massive radio telescope created
by the Space VLBI network will provide radio astronomers with
better resolution than has ever been achieved before by
ground-based radio telescopes, allowing astronomers to take a
closer look at distant objects in space.
     "There is a long history of radio astronomy using
ground-based telescopes," said Smith. "What we intend to do is to
extend radio astronomy into Earth orbit. Our goal is to look
deeper into the cores of galactic nuclei, quasars and other
active radio sources to understand what drives those things we
have seen so far with radio astronomy."
     Smith noted that if one examines "the active galactic
nuclei, you'll find jets appearing to spew at speeds greater than
light, and at energy levels that are millions of times greater
than you would expect."
     He said some astronomers believe that black holes may be
located in the cores of these galaxies, and that they may fuel
the jets. Smith hopes that "by using Space VLBI to look further
into the cores, this theory may be supported or disproved."
     Russian space-flight hardware, including transponders and
transmitters, are now being tested in the United States, and
Japanese hardware is scheduled to arrive for testing later this
year. Analysis of this hardware will permit U.S. scientists and
engineers to understand how to modify the high-speed VLBA
Correlator operating at the NRAO in order to accommodate the odd
data patterns that will originate from the more than 20
ground-based radio telescopes involved in Space VLBI.
     Smith is particularly pleased that meetings with the
Japanese and Russian space agency officials -- like those held at
JPL in March -- have proceeded smoothly. Yet he knows that the
political uncertainty in Russia could jeopardize that country's
participation in the project.
     "Nothing is ever smooth," he said, "but the Russians have
been incredibly open with us. We always anticipated some
likelihood that we will not succeed because of political factors
beyond our control, yet there tends to be a way of keeping these
things going, because scientists on both sides are trying hard,
and people recognize the value of cooperation at this level."
     Smith points out that the Japanese space agency has more at
stake than just fulfilling an international commitment to a
science mission.
     "The Japanese have been extremely cooperative, since
international cooperation is essential to their science mission,"
he said.
     But Smith also noted that Japanese space agency officials
look at the U.S. Space VLBI mission as an opportunity to showcase
the technology involved with VSOP spacecraft, and their highly
regarded Mach V launch vehicle.
     Yet regardless of the risks involved in undertaking such an
ambitious project, JPL's Smith is satisfied that planning for the
Space VLBI Project is beyond the significant financial and
political hurdles that otherwise might threaten the project.
     "Fortunately, we have the virtue of having two partners, and
if either falls out, we would still have something with the
other. By themselves, both spacecraft are independent,
scientifically exciting missions."
                           ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61144
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:06:09 BST, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) said:
GS> How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
GS> able to accept donations to keep craft operational.

I seem to remember NASA considering this for some of the Apollo
equipment left on the moon, but that they decided against it.

Or maybe not...


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<, 
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61145
From: wawers@lif.de (Theo Wawers)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times


There is a nice little tool in Lucid emacs. It's called "calendar".
On request it shows for given longitude/latitude coordinates times for
sunset and sunrise. The code is written in lisp.
I don't know if you like the idea that an editor is the right program to
calculate these things.


Theo W.

Theo Wawers                                  LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBH
email : wawers@sunny.lif.de                  Lyonerstr. 22
phone : +49 69 66 77 639                     D-6000 Frankfurt/Main
fax   : +49 69 66 77 571                     Germany


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61146
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61147
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Joe Wetstein

There is a wonderful book by Jean Meeus called
"Astronomical Algorithms," (1991) which I am fairly sure
contains an algorithm for sunrise and sunset times.


Dan Asimov
Mail Stop T045-1
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

asimov@nas.nasa.gov
(415) 604-4799

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61148
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes:
> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.

Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra
Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."

I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme
care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in
the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not
surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

Of course, what Shakespeare        | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
ORIGINALLY wrote was "First thing  | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  
we do, let's kill all the EDITORS."| Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  
But for some reason it didn't      | Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  
survive past the first draft.      | SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  
-- David D. "Laserdave" Levine (davidl@ssd.intel.com)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61149
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
Crystal City.  Mr. Mark Holderman works down the hall from me, and can
be reached for comment at (713) 483-1317, or via e-mail at
mholderm@jscprofs.nasa.gov.

Mark proposed this design, which he calls "Geode" ("rough on the
outside, but a gem on the inside") or the "ET Strongback with
integrated hab modules and centrifuge."  As you can see from file
geodeA.gif, it uses a Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) in place of much
of the truss which is currently part of Space Station Freedom.  The
white track on the outside of the ET is used by the Station Remonte
Manipulator System (SRMS) and by the Reaction Control System (RCS)
pod.  This allows the RCS pod to move along the track so that thrusting
can occur near the center of gravity (CG) of the Station as the mass
properties of the Station change during assembly.

The inline module design allows the Shuttle to dock more easily because
it can approach closer to the Station's CG and at a structurally strong
part of the Station.  In the current SSF design, docking forces are
limited to 400 pounds, which seriously constrains the design of the
docking system.

The ET would have a hatch installed pre-flight, with little additional
launch mass.  We've always had the ability to put an ET into orbit
(contrary to some rumors which have circulated here), but we've never
had a reason to do it, while we have had some good reasons not to
(performance penalties, control, debris generation, and eventual
de-orbit and impact footprint).  Once on-orbit, we would vent the
residual H2.  The ET insulation (SOFI) either a) erodes on-orbit from
impact with atomic Oxygen, or b) stays where it is, and we deploy a
Kevlar sheath around it to protect it and keep it from contaminating
the local space environment.  Option b) has the advantage of providing
further micrometeor protection.  The ET is incredibly strong (remember,
it supports the whole stack during launch), and could serve as the
nucleus for a much more ambitious design as budget permits.

The white module at the end of ET contains a set of Control Moment
Gyros to be used for attitude control, while the RCS will be used
for gyro desaturation.  The module also contains a de-orbit system
which can be used at the end of the Station's life to perform a
controlled de-orbit (so we don't kill any more kangaroos, like we
did with Skylab).

The centrifuge, which has the same volume as a hab module, could be
used for long-term studies of the effects of lunar or martian gravity
on humans.  The centrifuge will be used as a momentum storage device
for the whole attitude control system.  The centrifuge is mounted on
one of the modules, opposite the ET and the solar panels.

This design uses most of the existing SSF designs for electrical,
data and communication systems, getting leverage from the SSF work
done to date.

Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City,
and he reports that he was warmly received.  However, the rumors
I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter
seems more likely.

Please note that this text is my interpretation of Mark's design;
you should see his notes in the GIF files.  

Instead of posting a 2 MB file to sci.space, I tried to post these for
anon-FTP in ames.arc.nasa.gov, but it was out of storage space.  I'll
let you all know when I get that done.

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

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as 
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61150
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>one  should be called 'Smiley'.

Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

-- 
Jeff Foust              [49 days!]	"You're from outer space."
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech	"No, I'm from Iowa.  I only work in
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu			 outer space."
jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov			-- from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61151
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Russian Email Contacts.

I am coordinating the Space Shuttle Program Office's e-mail traffic to
NPO Energia for our on-going Joint Missions.  I have several e-mail
addresses for NPO Energia folks, but I won't post them on the 'Net for
obvious reasons.  If you need to know, give me a yell.

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

     "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
     the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61152
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky

In article <C5xr2w.Dnw.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:

   From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>

   > Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
   > please try to remember that there are more human activities than
   > those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
   > Priesthood.

   Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may 
    freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

The Priesthood has never quite forgiven
the merchants (aka Profiting Caste [sic])
for their rise to power, has it?

;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu 		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Ya know... you penguin types offend me. ...			*
*  My Gosh... Life is offensive!!   				*
*  Offensensitivity.		- BB 1984			*

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61153
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <1r9de3INNjkv@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes:

   In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
   >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
   >one  should be called 'Smiley'.

   Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
   object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

As it happens the _second_ one is Karla. The first one was
Smiley. All subject to the vagaries of the IAU of course,
but I think they might let this one slide...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  "The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his 	  *
*  revolution is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without  *
*  radical change. Telling people that paradise can be attained without   *
*  revolution is treason of the vilest kind."  -- H.S. 1993		  * 


Just had to try out my new .sig# on this forum ;-)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61154
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

jbreed@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:

>In article <C5ros0.uy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
>|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
>|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.

It's my understanding that the freezing will start to occur because of the
growing distance of Pluto and Charon from the Sun, due to it's
elliptical orbit. It is not due to shadowing effects. 

>Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
>sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
>our view of them either.  What am I missing?

Pluto can shadow Charon, and vice-versa.

George Krumins
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  George Krumins                                                              |
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                                   |
|  Pufferfish Observatory                                                      |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61155
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: What counntries do space surveillance?

      Ethnocentric USian that I am, I've assumed that we and the
xUSSR were the only countries with significant capabilities to track
non-cooperative objects in low Earth orbit. Grazing in a couple of 
databases recently,  I found that Japan has some optical capabilities
along this line, and also uses a radar designed for other purposes
for orbital debris surveys (it isn't clear whether the radar can 
determine orbital elements for the objects it detects). Abstracts of 
the articles are appended. 


    This leads to the more general question: do yet other people than 
the US, Russia, and Japan do space surveillance, and if so, how and 
why? 

Allen Thomson              SAIC                        McLean, VA, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ABSTRACTS

Optical tracking of the experimental geodetic satellite (EGS)
TAKABE, MASAO; ITABE, TOSHIKAZU; ARUGA, TADASHI
Radio Research Laboratory, Review (ISSN 0033-801X), vol. 34,
March 1988, p. 23-34. In Japanese, with abstract in English.
     This paper reports the optical tracking results of EGS
(experimental geodetic satellite) which was launched on August 13,
1986, by NASDA. The EGS optical tracking experiment process and an
outline of the Radio Research Laboratory (RRL) optical ground       <----
station are discussed. A star tracking technique for optical
equipment calibration and satellite tracking technique for orbit
prediction improvement are also described. The accuracy of EGS
tracking data obtained by RRL at the request of NASDA is also
discussed. In addition, it is briefly demonstrated that the
position of the Japanese amateur satellite (JAS-1) which was
launched with the EGS, was accurately determined by means of a      <----
satellite tracking video. It is clear from this experiment that     <----
optical observation data (i.e., satellite direction data) are very  <----
useful for satellite orbit determination during initial launch      <----
stages. Furthermore, the results confirm the effectivenes of these  <----
two satellite optical tracking techniques.                          <----


MU radar measurements of orbital debris
SATO, TORU; KAYAMA, HIDETOSHI; FURUSAWA, AKIRA; KIMURA, IWANE
(Kyoto University, Japan)
AIAA, NASA, and DOD, Orbital Debris Conference: Technical Issues and 
Future Directions, Baltimore, MD, Apr. 16-19, 1990. 10 p. 
RPN: AIAA PAPER 90-1343
     Distributions of orbital debris versus height and scattering cross 
section are determined from a series of observations made with a high-
power VHF Doppler radar (MU radar) of Japan. An automated data 
processing algorithm has been developed to discriminate echoes of 
orbiting objects from those of undesired signals such as meteor trail 
echoes or lightning atmospherics. Although the results are preliminary, 
they showed good agreement with those from NORAD tracking radar      <----
observations using a much higher frequency. It is found that the     <----
collision frequency of a Space Station of 1 km x 1 km size at an 
altitude of 500 km with orbiting debris is expected to be as high as 
once per two years. 


Monitoring of the MU radar antenna pattern by Satellite Ohzora (EXOS-C)
SATO, T.; INOOKA, Y.; FUKAO, S. (Kyoto Univ., Japan); KATO, S.
Kyoto Univ., Uji (Japan). Radio Atmospheric Science Center.
In International Council of Scientific Unions, Middle Atmosphere Program.
Handbook for MAP, Vol. 20 5 p
Publication Date: Jun. 1986
      As the first attempt among MST (mesosphere stratosphere 
troposphere) type radars, the MU (middle and upper atmosphere) radar 
features an active phased array system. Unlike the conventional large 
VHF radars, in which output power of a large vacuum tube is distributed 
to individual antenna elements, each of 475 solid state power amplifier 
feeds each antenna element. This system configuration enables very fast 
beam steering as well as various flexible operations by dividing the 
antenna into independent subarrays, because phase shift and signal 
division/combination are performed at a low signal level using 
electronic devices under control of a computer network. The antenna 
beam can be switched within 10 microsec to any direction within the 
zenith angle of 30 deg. Since a precise phase alignment of each element 
is crucial to realize the excellent performance of this system, careful 
calibration of the output phase of each power amplifier and antenna 
element was carried out. Among various aircraft which may be used for 
this purpose artificial satellites have an advantage of being able to 
make a long term monitoring with the same system. An antenna pattern 
monitoring system for the MU radar was developed using the scientific 
satellite OHZORA (EXOS-C). A receiver named MUM (MU radar antenna 
Monitor) on board the satellite measures a CW signal of 100 to 400 
watts transmitted from the MU radar. The principle of the measurement 
and results are discussed.


Equatorial radar system
FUKAO, SHOICHIRO;  TSUDA, TOSHITAKA; SATO, TORU; KATO, SUSUMU
(Kyoto University, Uji, Japan)
(COSPAR, IAGA, SCOSTEP, et al., Plenary Meeting, 27th,
Workshops and Symposium on the Earth's Middle Atmosphere,
Espoo, Finland, July 18-29, 1988) Advances in Space Research
(ISSN 0273-1177), vol. 10, no. 10, 1990, p. 151-154.
     A large clear air radar with the sensitivity of an incoherent 
scatter radar for observing the whole equatorial atmosphere up to 1000 
km altitude is now being designed in Japan. The radar will be built in 
Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia (0.03 deg N, 109.29 deg E). The 
system is a 47-MHz monostatic Doppler radar with an active phased array 
configuration similar to that of the MU radar in Japan, which has been 
in successful operation since 1983. It will have a PA product of about 
3 x 10 to the 9th W sq m (P = average transmitter power, A = effective 
antenna aperture) with a sensitivity of approximately 10 times that of 
the MU radar. This system configuration enables pulse-to-pulse beam 
steering within 20 deg from the zenith. As is the case of the MU radar, 
a variety of operations will be made feasible under the supervision of 
the radar controller. A brief description of the system configuration 
is presented. 


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61156
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/23/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                       MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             April 23, 1993
                              10:00 AM PDT

Flight Sequence C8 is active, the Spacecraft subsystems and instrument
payload performing well in Array Normal Spin and outer cruise
configuration, with uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink
at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 K Engineering data rate.

As a result of the spacecraft entering Contingency Mode on April 9, all
payload instruments were automatically powered off by on-board fault
protection software.  Gamma Ray Spectrometer Random Access Memory
was successfully reloaded on Monday, April 19.  To prepare for
Magnetometer Calibrations which were rescheduled for execution in Flight
Sequence C9 on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, a reload of Payload
Data System Random Access Memory will take place this morning
beginning at 10:30 AM.

Over this weekend, the Flight Team will send real-time commands to
perform Differential One-Way Ranging to obtain additional data for
analysis by the Navigation Team.  Radio Science Ultra Stable Oscillator
testing will take place on Monday .

The Flight Sequence C9 uplink will occur on Sunday, April 25, with
activation at Midnight, Monday evening April 26.  C9 has been modified to
include Magnetometer Calibrations which could not be performed in C8 due
to Contingency Mode entry on April 9.  These Magnetometer instrument
calibrations will allow the instrument team to better characterize the
spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument.
This information is critical to Martian magnetic field measurements
which occur during approach and mapping phases. MAG Cals will require
the sequence to command the spacecraft out of Array Normal Spin state
and perform slew and roll maneuvers to provide the MAG team data points
in varying spacecraft attitudes and orientations.

Today, the spacecraft is 22,971,250 km (14,273,673 mi.) from Mars
travelling at a velocity of 2.09 kilometers/second (4,677 mph) with
respect to Mars.  One-way light time is approximately 10 minutes, 38
seconds.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61157
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/23/93

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                         April 23, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, gathering
gravity data to plot the density variations of Venus in the
mid-latitudes.  The solar panel offpoint was returned to zero degrees
and spacecraft temperatures dropped 2-3 degrees C.

2.  An end-to-end test of the Delayed Aerobraking Data readout
process was conducted this week in preparation for the Transition
Experiment.  There was some difficulty locking up to the data frames,
and engineers are presently checking whether the problem was in
equipment at the tracking station.

3.  Magellan has completed 7277 orbits of Venus and is now 32 days
from the end of Cycle 4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.

4.  Magellan scientists were participating in the Brown-Vernadsky
Microsymposium at Brown University in Providence, RI, this week.  This
joint meeting of U.S. and Russian Venus researchers has been
continuing for many years.

5.  A three-day simulation of Transition Experiment aerobraking
activities is planned for next week, including Orbit Trim Maneuvers
and Starcal (Star calibration) Orbits.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61158
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <STEINLY.93Apr23130246@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1r9de3INNjkv@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes:
>
>   In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>   >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>   >one  should be called 'Smiley'.
>
>   Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
>   object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.
>
>As it happens the _second_ one is Karla. The first one was
>Smiley. All subject to the vagaries of the IAU of course,
>but I think they might let this one slide...

	Gee, I feel so ignorant now...

	Research, then post.

							James Nicoll


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61159
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign Chief Resigns for Health Reasons

In article <C5xuGL.Jow@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes...
>Writer Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post that Joseph Shea, the 
>head of the space station redesign has resigned for health reasons.
> 
>Shea was hospitalized shortly after his selection in February.  He returned
>yesterday to lead the formal presentation to the independent White House panel.
>Shea's presentation was rambling and almost inaudible.

I missed the presentations given in the morning session (when Shea gave
his "rambling and almost inaudible" presentation), but I did attend
the afternoon session. The meeting was in a small conference room. The
speaker was wired with a mike, and there were microphones on the table for
the panel members to use. Peons (like me) sat in a foyer outside the
conference room, and watched the presentations on closed circuit TV. In
general, the sound system was fair to poor, and some of the other
speakers (like the committee member from the Italian Space Agency)
also were "almost inaudible."

Shea didn't "lead the formal presentation," in the sense of running
or guiding the presentation. He didn't even attend the afternoon
session. Vest ran the show (President of MIT, the chair of the
advisory panel).

> 
>Shea's deputy, former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, will take over the effort.

Note that O'Connor has been running the day-to-day
operations of the of the redesign team since Shea got sick (which
was immediately after the panel was formed).


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61160
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?
From: lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham)

Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Hi,
>     I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in
> there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them
> when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to
> the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he
> estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not
> be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published
> in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
> long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
> fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
> course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?
> Can this be extended to larger accelerations?

are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

lan


> 
> Thanks is advance...
> -Amruth Laxman
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61161
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.

In article <1r96hb$kbi@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
>>> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
>>===
>>I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
>>miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
>>people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
>>mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).
> 
> 
> Lot's of these small miners  are no longer miners.  THey are people living
> rent free on Federal land,  under the claim of being a miner.  The facts are
> many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining,  do not
> often even live their full time,  and do fotentimes do a fair bit
> of environmental damage.
> 
> These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's  when the west was
> uninhabited  and were designed to bring people into the frontier.  Times change
> people change.  DEAL.  you don't have a constitutional right to live off
> the same industry forever.  Anyone who claims the have a right to their
> job in particular,  is spouting nonsense.   THis has been a long term
> federal welfare program,  that has outlived it's usefulness.
> 
> pat
> 

Hum, do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? 
Come to Nome and meet some of these miners.. I am not sure how things go down
south in the lower 48 (I used to visit, but), of course to believe the
media/news its going to heck (or just plain crazy). 
Well it seems that alot of Unionist types seem to think that having a job is a
right, and not a priviledge. Right to the same job as your forbearers, SEE:
Kennedy's and tel me what you see (and the families they have married into).
There is a reason why many historians and poli-sci types use unionist and
socialist in the same breath.
The miners that I know, are just your average hardworking people who pay there
taxes and earn a living.. But taxes are not the answer. But maybe we could move
this discussion to some more appropriate newsgroup..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61162
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST

In article <1993Apr23.155313.4220@dazixco.ingr.com> jbreed@ingr.com writes:
>|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about
>|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent
>|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.
>
>Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block
>sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block
>our view of them either.  What am I missing?

You're assuming that their normal rotation carries all areas of the surface
into sunlight.  Not so.  Even on Earth, each pole gets several weeks without
sunlight in mid-winter.  Pluto and Charon have much more extreme axial
tilt and a much longer orbit.  Pluto's north pole, for example, gets over
a century of darkness followed by over a century of perpetual light.

At the moment, we're in luck -- Pluto and Charon are just past their
equinox, when the Sun was just on the horizon at both poles (of each).
If we get probes there soon, only the immediate vicinity of one pole
(on each) will be in long-term shadow.  This will get steadily worse the
longer we wait.
-- 
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61163
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Design Movies?

Is there a few Grasp pictures of space related items, namely Space Station
Designs, so you can see the "finished" revolt around..

If you don't know what a grasp prograsm is.. Check out some adult entertainment
files and see what I mean.. Or maybe geta few GIF files and create a "slide
shows" (I think Cshow can do this).. 

I liek to be able to see a space shuttle design in a AutoCAD program or to see
it revolt around and look at it.
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61164
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
From: thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca

In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:

<<<most of message deleted>>>

> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

> Really, really depressed.
> 
>              Enzo

No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61165
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1993Apr23.184732.1105@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes...

   {Description of "External Tank" option for SSF redesign deleted}

>Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City,
>and he reports that he was warmly received.  However, the rumors
>I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter
>seems more likely.

Yo Ken, let's keep on-top of things! Both the "External Tank" and
"Wingless Orbiter" options have been deleted from the SSF redesign
options list. Today's (4/23) edition of the New York Times reports
that O'Connor told the panel that some redesign proposals have
been dropped, such as using the "giant external fuel tanks used
in launching space shuttles," and building a "station around
an existing space shuttle with its wings and tail removed."

Currently, there are three options being considered, as presented
to the advisory panel meeting yesterday (and as reported in
today's Times).

Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
This option is being studied by a team from MSFC. {As an aside,
there are SSF redesign teams at MSFC, JSC, and LaRC supporting
the SRT (Station Redesign Team) in Crystal City. Both LeRC and
Reston folks are also on-site at these locations, helping the respective
teams with their redesign activities.} Key features of this
option are:
  -  Uses "Bus-1", a modular bus developed by Lockheed that's
     qualified for STS and ELV's. The bus provides propulsion, GN&C
     Communications, & Data Management. Lockheed developed this
     for the Air Force.
  -  A "Power Station Capability" is obtained in 3 Shuttle Flights.
     SSF Solar arrays are used to provide 20 kW of power. The vehicle
     flies in an "arrow mode" to optimize the microgravity environment.
     Shuttle/Spacelab missions would utilize the vehilce as a power
     source for 30 day missions.
  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
     of man-tended capability) is achieved by the addition of the
     US Common module. This is a modified version of the existing
     SSF Lab module (docking ports are added for the International
     Partners' labs, taking the place of the nodes on SSF). The
     Shuttle can be docked to the station for 60 day missions.
     The Orbiter would provide crew habitability & EVA capability.
  -  International Human Tended. Add the NASDA & ESA modules, and
     add another 20 kW of power
  -  Permanent Human Presence Capability. Add a 3rd power module,
     the U.S. habitation module, and an ACRV (Assured Crew Return
     Vehicle).

Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
The Option "B" team is based at LaRC, and is lead by Mike Griffin.
This option looks alot like the existing SSF design, which we
have all come to know and love :)

This option assumes a lightweight external tank is available for
use on all SSF assembly flights (so does option "A"). Also, the 
number of flights is computed for a 51.6 inclination orbit,
for both options "A" and "B".

The build-up occurs in six phases:
  -  Initial Research Capability reached after 3 flights. Power
     is transferred from the vehicle to the Orbiter/Spacelab, when
     it visits.
  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
     language) is achieved after 8 flights. The U.S. Lab is
     deployed, and 1 solar power module provides 20 kW of power.
  -  Permanent Human Presence Capability occurs after 10 flights, by
     keeping one Orbiter on-orbit to use as an ACRV (so sometimes
     there would be two Orbiters on-orbit - the ACRV, and the
     second one that comes up for Logistics & Re-supply).
  -  A "Two Fault Tolerance Capability" is achieved after 14 flights,
     with the addition of a 2nd power module, another thermal
     control system radiator, and more propulsion modules.
  -  After 20 flights, the Internationals are on-board. More power,
     the Habitation module, and an ACRV are added to finish the
     assembly in 24 flights.

Most of the systems currently on SSF are used as-is in this option, 
with the exception of the data management system, which has major
changes.

Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
  - 7 berthing ports
  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
    (twice the volume of skylab).
  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
  - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
    loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
  - increased crew time for utilization
  - 1 micro-g thru out the core module

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61166
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
>Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
>
 (excerpts from posting on this topic) 

>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au 
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.  
>... 
>>... the real purpose of the project is to help the environment! 
>>The platform will carry ozone monitors 
>
>... 
>I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
>effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
>but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
>be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
>it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
>as it goes zipping across the sky.
>

(I've seen satellites at midnight - they're not only in twilight.) :o) 

>...
>
>From the book "Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla" by John J. O'Neill:
>
>"This remarkable conductivity of gases, including the air, at low
>pressures, led Tesla to suggest, in a published statement in 1914, a
>system of lighting on a terrestrial scale in which he proposed to treat
>the whole Earth, with its surrounding atmosphere, as if it were a
>single lamp....  
>The whole Earth would be transformed into a giant lamp, with the night 
>sky completely illuminated.  ... making the night as bright as day."
> 

Now my comments: 

I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly 
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for 
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I 
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may 
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred - 
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars 
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and 
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time 
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man. 
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.  
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there 
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief 
in an afterlife.  

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks 
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light 
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people 
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating 
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or 
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.  
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky. 

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live 
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport 
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The 
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists 
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped 
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life 
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels 
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains 
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing, 
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed 
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80 
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters 
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of 
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect. 

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't 
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever - 
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch 
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer, 
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.  
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at 
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.  

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage 
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at 
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the 
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it 
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could 
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky 
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that 
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid, 
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61167
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Re: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
>
> All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the
> moon for a year is wise and/or useful.  How about:  A prize for the
> first
> non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a
> manned
> moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from
> lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth. 
> Find
> some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure...  Having a single
> goal
> might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person
> appeared
> to win.  And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little
> scary
> about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters.  I'd
> like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition.
>
> Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was
> an
> English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases
> on
> the cheap.  I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human
> body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from
> solar
> flares, etc.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. 
> Does this ring a bell to anyone?
>
> Craig Keithley                    |"I don't remember, I don't recall, 
> Apple Computer, Inc.              |I got no memory of anything at all"
> keithley@apple.com                |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)
>

I love the idea of progressive developmental prizes, but the assumption
has
been all along that only the U.S. Gummint could fund the prizes.  It
wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing ... BUT ...

An eccentric billionaire COULD offer such a prize or series of prizes.

Anyone know H. Ross Perot or Bill Gates personally?

John G.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61168
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


----- News saved at 23 Apr 93 22:22:40 GMT
In article <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
>  This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary, 
>ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!
  

>  "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is 
>closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase 
>of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion. 
>(defining edge = 0 ether spin)  

>  To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history.  

Well, I'm working on it, but getting a little impatient. So far, 
I've made it through Egyptian, Chinese, and Greek cultures, and
up through the Rennaisance. But so far, these insights just don't 
seem to be gelling. Perhaps it's in an appendix somewhere.

In its own right, though, the history is kind of fun. Lots of 
good yarns in there, with varied and interesting characters. And,
more to come.





 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61169
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
...
>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
Come to think of it, they might send someone on
a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

>Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61170
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?)

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

...
>Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a
>fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up
>fast.  I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a
>technical education to follow them up.  Too bad I wound up in an
>assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day...
>(-:

How can you tell they're identical?

You got one of them "Star Drek: The Next Syndication" neutrino
scanners?
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61171
Subject: DC-X/Y/1 question
From: kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)



   I've been following discussions about the Delta Clipper program, and I
have one small question.  As I understand it, the DC-X derived orbital
vehicle (DC-Y & 1) is to reenter the atmosphere sort of sideways, not
completely nose-first.  So why is the DC-Y look symmetric in every drawing
I've seen?  I would think that an asymmetric design, sort of like 
wingless Orbiter, may work better, since less shielding is required on the
top side.  Can anybody explain?  

- Ken Kobayashi
kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ken Kobayashi              |   
kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu        |   "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61172
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: DC-Y trajectory simulation


I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've 
transcribed some of my notes below.  Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine.  Permission is 
granted to copy this without restriction.

Note for newbies:  The Delta Clipper project is geared towards producing a
single staget to orbit, reusable launch vehicle.  The DC-X vehicle is a 1/3
scale vehicle designed to test some of the concepts invovled in SSTO.  It is 
currently undergoing tests.  The DC-Y vehicle would be a full scale 
experimental vehicle capable of reaching orbit.  It has not yet been funded.

On April 6th, Rocky Nelson of MacDonnell Douglas gave a talk entitled 
"Optimizing Techniques for Advanced Space Missions" here at the University of
Illinois. Mr Nelson's job involves using software to simulate trajectories and
determine the optimal trajectory within given requirements.  Although he is
not directly involved with the Delta Clipper project, he has spent time with 
them recently, using his software for their applications.  He thus used 
the DC-Y project for most of his examples.  While I don't think the details
of implicit trajectory simulation are of much interest to the readers (I hope
they aren't - I fell asleep during that part), I think that many of you will
be interested in some of the details gleaned from the examples.

The first example given was the maximization of payload for a polar orbit.  The
main restriction is that acceleration must remain below 3 Gs.  I assume that
this is driven by passenger constraints rather than hardware constraints, but I
did not verify that.  The Delta Clipper Y version has 8 engines - 4 boosters
and 4 sustainers.  The boosters, which have a lower isp, are shut down in 
mid-flight.  Thus, one critical question is when to shut them down.  Mr Nelson
showed the following plot of acceleration vs time:
                  ______
3 G         /|   /      |
           / |  /       |          As ASCII graphs go, this is actually fairly 
          /  | /        |	   good.  The big difference is that the lines
2 G      /   |/         |          made by the  /  should be curves which are
        /               |          concave up.  The data is only approximate, as
       /                |          the graph wasn't up for very long.
1 G   /                 |
                        |
                        |
0 G                     |

             ^          ^
           ~100 sec    ~400 sec


As mentioned before, a critical constraint is that G levels must be kept below
3.  Initially, all eight engines are started.  As the vehicle  burns fuel the
accelleration increases.  As it gets close to 3G, the booster engines are 
throtled back.  However, they quickly become inefficient at low power, so it
soon makes more sense to cut them off altogether.  This causes the dip in 
accelleration at about 100 seconds.  Eventually the remaining sustainer engines
bring the G level back up to about 3 and then hold it there until they cut
out entirely.

The engine cutoff does not acutally occur in orbit.  The trajectory is aimed
for an altitude slightly higher than the 100nm desired and the last vestiges of
air drag slow the vehicle slightly, thus lowering the final altitude to 
that desired.

Questions from the audience:  (paraphrased)

Q:  Would it make sense to shut down the booster engines in pairs, rather than
    all at once?

A:  Very perceptive.  Worth considering.  They have not yet done the simulation.    Shutting down all four was part of the problem as given.

Q:  So what was the final payload for this trajectory?

A:  Can't tell us.  "Read Aviation Leak."  He also apparently had a good 
    propulsion example, but was told not to use it.  

My question:  Does anyone know if this security is due to SDIO protecting
national security or MD protecting their own interests?

The second example was reentry simulation, from orbit to just before the pitch
up maneuver.  The biggest constraint in this one is aerodynamic heating, and 
the parameter they were trying to maximize was crossrange.  He showed graphs
of heating using two different models, to show that both were very similar,
and I think we were supposed to assume that this meant they were very accurate.
The end result was that for a polar orbit landing at KSC, the DC-Y would have
about 30 degrees of crossrange and would start it's reentry profile about 
60 degrees south latitude.

I would have asked about the landing maneuvers, but he didn't know about that
aspect of the flight profile.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61173
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: RIMSAT, US/Russian joint venture


I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've 
transcribed some of my notes below.  Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine.  Permission is 
granted to copy this without restriction.

Michael Sternberg, Cheif of Operations of RIMSAT, was invited to speak at an
informal lunch held by ACDIS here on the campus of the University of Illinois.
ACDIS is an organization on campus that deals with Arms Control, Disarmament and
International Security.  RIMSAT was considered an appropriate topic because the
company is using Russian launchers and satellites.  I think it also helped that
his daughter is a grad student in the International Relations program.

The concept behind RIMSAT apparently began when Matt Neilson (?) went to Tonga
to visit a friend.  While he was there, he somehow ended up visiting the king,
who happened to be a big TV fan.  Matt bought the King a satellite dish, which 
the king thought was really nifty.  Since Tonga has a GNP of about $70 million,
His Majesty asked if there was any way to make money off this.  Matt thought
there probably was, so at his suggestion, Tonga applied for 31 geosynchronous
satellite slots.  While this isn't entirely off the wall, it was very unusual,
seeing as Tonga was a tiny kingdom with no space program, and 31 is a lot of
slots.

The whole thing was debated in the appropriate regulatory agency and Carl
Hilliard (who is apparently a respected space lawyer) wrote several opinions
supporting Tonga's case.  Eventually Tonga ended up with 7 slots, ranging from 
70 E to 170 E (slots are designated by the longitude over which they reside).
According to Sternberg, four of these, from 130 E to 142 E are the best in the
world because they are excellently placed for communications between Hawaii and 
the Pacific Rim. 

RIMSAT was formed to use these slots. It was officially formed in Nevis as a tax
haven.  They tried for a few years to raise funds in the west, however, to
fill 7 slots with western satellites launched on western launchers would have
cost approximately $2 billion.  It's not easy to raise that kind of money.
Eventually, they hit upon the idea of using Russian hardware.  They began 
negotiating with Glavkosmos for hardware.  Mr Sternberg describes operating in 
Moscow in such harsh terms that I don't think I'll visit there for a long time.
Besides a significant lack of creature comforts, he was not happy with the way
that people operate.  For example "everybody can sell you everything."  
Everyone can show the proper documents and licenses that indicate they are the
only ones who have the authority to sell what ever you want to by.

Eventually, RIMSAT arranged a deal with Glavkosmos for 6 satellites at a cost
of $150 million.  However, Glavkosmos lost favor after the coup.  Sternberg
says that this is because they were basically a bunch of KGB operatives who 
went to trade shows and picked up lots of brochures.  Since Glavkosmos was
out of power, he had to renegotiate the deal with the new authorities.  He
again described life in a Moscow hotel in rather unfavorable terms.  Eventually,
he worked out a deal and on Dec 4, 1992 he met with Koptev, who heads the 
Russian space program, to sign the deal.  Koptev insisted on a few concessions
before signing and according to Sternberg he arranged these new rules to 
allow himself to form another company to do the exact same thing as RIMSAT.

The next step was to meet with the builders of the hardware, NPO Applied 
Mechanics -- NPO PM to use their acronym.  This organization is located in 
Siberia (can't figure out how to spell the town, I need an atlas) and has built
about 1500 vehicles since the dawn of the space age.  Sternberg commented that
siberians are very different from Musovites.  They are hard workers, honest
people who team up to get things done, very much like midwesterners.  At this
point there were some comments from the audience that agreed with his opinion on
both siberians and midwesterners :-)

Sternberg had lots of good things to say about NPO PM.  His company is 
apparently lookng for $100 million to invest in the firm to become 50% partners.It apparently costs the Russians about $4 million to build a satellite that
would sell for $50 million in the west.  If you want to give them 
specifications, they'll build you a satellite.  For the particular satellites
that RIMSAT will be using, costs run about $378,000 per transponder year.  This
compares to $810,000 t/y in the U.S.  They can sell their time for about $1.1
million compared to $2.6 million in the U.S.  RIMSAT will launch their 
satellites on Protons.  To get the best prices, they bought in bulk.  They 
have the rights to twelve launches, so if any of you need a lift I can give
you their address.  The first launch is scheduled for October and they are
getting one used satellite from the Russians, which is being moved into place
now.

Tidbits:

*  Sternberg says this kind of thing has to be done by entrepreneurs, not big
business because big business is just like what they have over there, except
that "we have better paper, both in the bathroom and in the copier."

*  Russian launches are self insured.  The promise to replace a failed launch
within 9 months.

*  Major investors in RIMSAT include Russell 20/20, which is a huge retirement
fund organization, Cellsat, which is a big telecom business in southeast Asia,
and a fund operated by some of the big names in U.S aerospace which he says is
sort of an insurance policy for them if this really takes off.

*  He downplayed the instabilites in the ex-USSR saying that we are worried
partly because we aren't used to seeing Russia as anything but an unvarying
monolith.  Italy gets a new government "every two weeks" but we don't worry 
because we're used to it.  He predicted that once we get used to seeing what
really goes on in Russia we won't worry about their stability as much.

*  Part of the problem with cooperative ventures is the problem of transfering
money.  The central bank has a policy of taking hard currency payments, putting
25% in their coffers and replacing the rest with the "equivalent" value in 
rubles.  To get around this, RIMSAT pays their hard currency into an Austrian
bank account.  NPO PM then pays their contractors with foreign currency so that
the only the contractors get swindled by the government.

*  One of the big problems RIMSAT has had is stonewalling by the western 
satellite industry.  However, Intelsat recently bought three of the same type
of satellites, which was rather reassuring.

*  The biggest worry most people have about russian satellites is the primitive
technology and shorter lifetime.  The older Gorizont (Horizon) satellites have
a lifetime of about 5 years, while the more modern Express satellites compare
well with western technology and last about 8 years.  While this is much 
shorter than 15 years for western satellites, Sternberg downplayed the 
difference.  At these prices they can afford to launch new ones.  In addition,
shorter lifetimes mean that they can replace their equipment with newer
technology so they will be able to compete better than older, out of date
hardware.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61174
From: mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:

...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...

>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>  - 7 berthing ports
>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power

Only 10KW?

>  - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
>    loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
>  - increased crew time for utilization
>  - 1 micro-g thru out the core module

Ha!  "North America Modular SPACE STATION construction" :-)
Same apprach, same reasoning: "construction occurs under assembly
line conditions, no random weather problems interupting site-work
on your home - better quality control" -- sounds like first "-"
point above :-)

Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu      [work]
Dept. Head-Computer & Network Systems +           mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home]
UMCEES / CBL (Solomons Island)        + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61175
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <1993Apr20.142747.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu  
writes:
> In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)  
writes:
> >    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first
> > black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew
> > on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the
> > "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31.
> > It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting.
> > 
> > Doug Loss
> 
> 
> Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an
> astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future  
of
> space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space..
> 


A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
have expected a more visible/meaningful role.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61176
From: looper@cco.caltech.edu (Mark D. Looper)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>Galileo's HGA  is stuck.   

>The HGA was left closed,  because galileo  had a venus flyby.

>If the HGA were pointed att he sun,  near venus,  it would
>cook the foci elements.

>question:  WHy couldn't Galileo's  course manuevers have been
>designed such that the HGA  did not ever do a sun point.?

The HGA isn't all that reflective in the wavelengths that might "cook the
focal elements", nor is its figure good on those scales--the problem is
that the antenna _itself_ could not be exposed to Venus-level sunlight,
lest like Icarus' wings it melt.  (I think it was glues and such, as well
as electronics, that they were worried about.)  Thus it had to remain
furled and the axis _always_ pointed near the sun, so that the small
sunshade at the tip of the antenna mast would shadow the folded HGA.
(A larger sunshade beneath the antenna shielded the spacecraft bus.)

--Mark Looper
"Hot Rodders--America's first recyclers!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61177
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
hyperspace :-)

but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

pat  


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61178
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL

In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes
>describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer
>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five


Too bad they didn't  give him a tour of the CGRO data?

I think he'd be fascinated by the Gamma ray bursters.  The mind of
hawking might even propose a mechanism.


SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?  carries an
aluminum-gold  set of grateful dead albums?   inquiring minds
want to know?

And why would MO  carry any features for being drag free?  I thought
aero-braking was a possible MO  experimental activity?

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61179
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

In article <1r6mcgINNe87@gap.caltech.edu+ kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
+In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+ wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
+++
++Once inflated the substance was no longer
++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no 
++disastrous deflation.
+
+preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
+a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
+catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
+
+The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.

No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61180
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Level 5?



WHile we are on the subject of the shuttle software.

what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61181
From: S901924@mailserv.cuhk.hk
Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise

In article <C4M8E5.AuD@csn.org> et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
>Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
>Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity?
>Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT
>In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>>> physics.
>>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>>> string theory?
>>
>>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>>including the omni-present "black holes."
>>
>>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-
>
>"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
>no properties."
>"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
>space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
>is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
>for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla
>
>----
> ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
>----

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61182
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) are seen coming equally from all directions.
However, given the number of bright ones, there are too few faint
ones to be consistent with being equally dense for as far
as we can see--it is as if they are all contained within
a finite sphere (or a sphere with fuzzy edges) with us at the
center.  (These measurements are statistical, and you can
always hide a sufficiently small number of a different
type of GRB with a different origin in the data.  I am assuming
that there is only one population of GRBs).

The data indicates that we are less than 10% of the radius of the center
of the distribution.  The only things the Earth is at the exact center
of are the Solar system (at the scale of the Oort cloud of comets
way beyond Pluto) and the Universe.  Cosmological theories, placing
GRBs throughout the Universe, require supernova-type energies to
be released over a timescale of milliseconds.  Oort cloud models
tend to be silly, even by the standards of astrophysics.

If GRBs were Galactic (i.e. distributed through the Milky Way Galaxy)
you would expect them to be either concentrated in the plane of
the Galaxy (for a 'disk' population), or towards the Galactic center
(for a spherical 'halo' population).  We don't see this, so if they
are Galactic, they must be in a halo at least 250,000 light years in
radius, and we would probably start to see GRBs from the Andromeda
Galaxy (assuming that it has a similar halo.)  For comparison, the
Earth is 25,000 light-years from the center of the Galaxy.

>my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
>hyperspace :-)

The aren't concentrated in the known spacelanes, and we don't
see many coming from Zeta Reticuli and Tau Ceti.

>but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
>are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
>if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

There are more than 130 GRB different models in the refereed literature.
Right now, the theorists have a sort of unofficial moratorium
on new models until new observational evidence comes in.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61183
From: Pat.Hoage@f6507.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Hoage)
Subject: army in space

I just got out of the Army. Go signal corps or Intelligence; 
photointelligence interpretation. If you go ADA you might get to play with 
rockets but space will look pretty far away dug in the mud next to a grunt 
protecting the foward troops from low flying objects. Good Luck  
 

 * Origin: *AmeriComm*, 214/373-7314. Dallas'Info Source. (1:124/6507)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61184
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek

In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.


Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,  

and besides.

Maybe she can't act:-)

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61185
From: byab314@chpc.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr23.140649.1@rhea.arc.ab.ca> thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca writes:
>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
>
>No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
>so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.

  Thanks for these surreal moments....
                                               Srinivas
-- 
Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : byab314@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. (512) 471 4332
BITNET : byab314@uthermes

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61186
From: rlennip4@mach1.wlu.ca (robert lennips 9209 U)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST

Please get a REAL life.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61187
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)

In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept." 
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?

	I am puzzled by the term "concept." Drag free may already have
been flown. It was the idea behind putting up a spacecraft that would
more accurately respond to motions from the Earth's gravity field and
ignore drag. It was proposed many years ago and involved a ball
floating between sensors whose job it was to signal to little
adjustment jets to keep the ball away from them. The ball itself would
then be in a drag free condition and respond only to gravity
anisotropies, whereas the spacecraft itself would be continuously
adjusting its position to compensate for drag.


Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61188
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission


  Did the Russian spacecraft(s) on the ill-fated Phobos mission a few
years ago send back any images of the Martian moon?  If so, does anyone know if
they're housed at an ftp site?
  Thanks.
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61189
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

Another fish to check out is Richard Rast -- he works
for Lockheed Missiles, but is on-site at NASA Johnson.

Nick Johnson at Kaman Sciences in Colo. Spgs and his
friend, Darren McKnight at Kaman in Alexandria, VA.

Good luck.

R. Landis

"Behind every general is his wife.... and...
 behind every Hillary is a Bill . ."



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61190
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Book

What in blazes is going on with Wayne Matson and gang
down in Alabama?  I also heard an unconfirmed rumor that
Aerospace Ambassadors have disappeared.  Can anyone else
confirm??

++Rob Landis
   STScI, Baltimore, MD



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61191
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) ...

Glad to see Griffin is spending his time on engineering rather than on
ritual purification of the language.  Pity he got stuck with the turkey
rather than one of the sensible options.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61192
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>... The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, actually, since they weren't
building spares of the station hardware anyway.  (Dumb.)  At least this
is only one launch to fail.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61193
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1raejd$bf4@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
>was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
>wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
>of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
>resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.

This sounds like another of Ali AbuTaha's 57 different "real causes" of
the Challenger accident.  As far as I know, there has never been the
slightest shred of evidence for a "harmonic resonance" having occurred.

The windshear-induced maneuvering probably *did* contribute to opening
up the leak path in the SRB joint again -- it seems to have sealed itself
after the puffs of smoke during liftoff -- but the existing explanation
of this and related events seems to account for the evidence adequately.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61194
From: dgempey@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (David Gordon Empey)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST


In <1993Apr23.165459.3323@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:

>In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:

>[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]


>Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
>in Somalia!)

>To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)

Well, I thought it must have been a joke, but I don't get the 
joke in the name. Read it aloud? David MACaloon. David MacALLoon.
David macalOON. I don't geddit.

-Dave Empey (speaking for himself)
>-- 
>Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet! 



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61195
From: maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU (T. Giaquinto)
Subject: General Information Request


	I am looking for any information about the space program.
This includes NASA, the shuttles, history, anything!  I would like to
know if anyone could suggest books, periodicals, even ftp sites for a
novice who is interested in the space program.



					Todd Giaquinto
					maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU
					

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61196
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  Where are they? 
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>   What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
> 
> Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
> 
> Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   
> 
> my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
> hyperspace :-)
> 
> but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
> are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
> if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
> 
> pat  
        Well, lets see....I took a class on this last fall, and I have no
notes so I'll try to wing it...  
        Here's how I understand it. Remember from stellar evolution that 
black holes and neutron stars(pulsars) are formed from high mass stars,
M(star)=1.4M(sun).  High mass stars live fast and burn hard, taking
appoximately 10^5-10^7 years before going nova, or supernova.  In this time,
they don't live long enough to get perturbed out of the galactic plane, so any
of these (if assumed to be the sources of GRB's) will be in the plane of the
galaxy.  
        Then we take the catalog of bursts that have been recieved from the
various satellites around the solar system, (Pioneer Venus has one, either
Pion. 10 or 11, GINGA, and of course BATSE) and we do distribution tests on our
catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an 
analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.  
        I should throw in why halo, and corona models don't work, also.  As I
said before, looking at the possible astrophysics of the bursts, (short
timescales, high energy) black holes, and pulsars exhibit much of this type of
behavior.  If this is the case, as I said before, these stars seem to be bound
to the disk of the galaxy, especially the most energetic of the these sources.
When you look at a simulated model, where the bursts are confined to the disk,
but you sample out to large distances, say 750 mpc, you should definitely see
not only an anisotropy towards you in all direction, but a clumping of sources 
in the direction of the  galactic center.  As I said before, there is none of
these characteristics.  
        
        I think that's all of it...if someone needs clarification, or knows
something that I don't know, by all means correct me.  I had the honor of
taking the Bursts class with the person who has done the modeling of these
different distributions, so we pretty much kicked around every possible
distribution there was, and some VERY outrageous sources. Colliding pulsars,
black holes, pulsars that are slowing down...stuff like that.   It's a fun
field. 
        Complaints and corrections to: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu or 
post here.  
                                                        -jeremy

        

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61197
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days



SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.

How will said re-boost be done?

Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,  

unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,

then return to earth?

My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?

why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
tilt  motor  fix.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61198
From: oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission

Yes, the Phobos mission did return some useful data including images of Phobos
itself. The best I've seen had a surface resolution of about 40 meters. By
the way, the new book entitled "Mars" (Kieffer et al, 1992, University of
Arizona Press) has a great chapter on spacecraft exploration of the planet.
The chapter is co-authored by V.I. Moroz of the Space Research Institute in
Moscow, and includes details never before published in the West. Don't
know of any ftp sites with images though.

Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61199
From: C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk (CHA WONG)
Subject: How can you see the launch of the Space Shuttle ?


Sorry for asking a question that's not entirely based on the
technical aspects of space, but I couldn't find the
answer on the FAQs !

I'm currently in the UK, which makes seeing a Space Shuttle
launch a little difficult.....

However, I have been selected to be an exchange student
at Louisiana State Uni. from August, and I am absolutely
determined to get to see a Space Shuttle launch sometime
during the year at which I will be in America.

I hear there's a bit of a long mailing list, so if someone
can tell me how to get tickets and where to get them from, then
please E-mail me !

Thanks very much for your patience....

(And if anyone else wants to know, tell me and I'll summarize
for you - just to save all those poor people who have to
pay for their links !)
-- 
===============================    April is the cruellest month
Andrew Wong                    \   Mixing memory and desire
-----x-----                     \
E-mail:C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk \ T.S.Eliot - The Wasteland 1918

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61200
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>How will said re-boost be done?
>Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,  
>unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,
>then return to earth?

Actually, the reboost will probably be done last, so that there is a fuel
reserve during the EVAs (in case they have to chase down an adrift
astronaut or something like that).  But yes, you've got the idea -- the
reboost is done by taking the whole shuttle up.

>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost...

Somebody has to build that thruster module; it's not an off-the-shelf
item.  Nor is it a trivial piece of hardware, since it has to include
attitude control (HST's own is not strong enough to compensate for things
like thruster imbalance), guidance (there is no provision to feed gyro
data from HST's own gyros to an external device), and separation (you
don't want it left attached afterward, if only to avoid possible
contamination after the telescope lid is opened again).  You also get
to worry about whether the lid is going to open after the reboost is
done and HST is inaccessible to the shuttle (the lid stays closed for
the duration of all of this to prevent mirror contamination from
thrusters and the like).

The original plan was to use the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to do the
reboost.  The OMV was planned to be a sort of small space tug, well
suited to precisely this sort of job.  Unfortunately, it was costing
a lot to develop and the list of definitely-known applications was
relatively short, so it got cancelled.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61201
Subject: Re:  PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)

In article <1993Apr22.213815.12288@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
>> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
>If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
>McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
>choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
>guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?
>
>It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
>are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
>wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
>have the problems that we do.
>
>[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
>quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]

Was that post for real? I thought it was a late April Fool joke. Some of it
seemed a bit over the top even by McElwaine/Abian/etc standards :-)

--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ............ alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
      "And crawling on the planet's face
      Some insects called the human race
      Lost in time and lost in space"      (RHPS)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61202
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Re: Space billboards

Even easier to implement than writing messages on the Moon, once upon
a time a group of space activists I belonged to in Seattle considered
a "Goodyear Blimp in orbit".  The idea was to use a large structure
that could carry an array of lights like the Goodyear Blimp has.
Placed in a low Earth orbit of high inclination, it could eventually
be seen by almost everyone on Earth.  Only our collective disapproval
of cluttering up space with such a thing stopped us from pursuing
it.  It had quite feasible economics, which I will not post here
because I don't want to encourage the idea (if you want to do such
a thing, go figure it out for yourself).

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61203
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)



Joe,

	your description sounds like one of the  gravity probe  spacecraft
ideas.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61204
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?

In article <1993Apr22.184650.4833@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
>sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.

definitely a lemur.

Elvis couldn't spell,  just listen to any of his songs.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61205
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times

In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
>Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
>Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
>the arctic circle.



If you want to have some fun.

Plug the basic formulas  into Lotus.

Use the spreadsheet auto re-calc,  and graphing functions
to produce  bar graphs  based on latitude,  tilt  and hours of day light avg.


pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61206
From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Subject: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
Thanks in advance.

--

bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill

You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61207
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Commercial Space News #22

COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22

   This is number twenty-two in an irregular series on commercial 
space activities.  The commentaries included are my thoughts on 
these developments.  

   Sigh... as usual, I've gotten behind in getting this column 
written.  I can only plead the exigency of the current dynamics in 
the space biz.  This column is put together at lunch hour and after 
the house quiets down at night, so data can quickly build up if 
there's a lot of other stuff going on.  I've complied a lot of 
information and happenings since the last column, so I'm going to 
have to work to keep this one down to a readable length.  Have fun! 

CONTENTS:
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT" 
5- ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT
7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
FINAL NOTES
  
ARTICLES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
   The US Department of Commerce projects US commercial space sales 
will remain flat in 1993, with current data showing only a 2 percent 
growth over 1992.  As published in "US Industrial Outlook 1993" 
(which was released in January), revenues from the 1993 US space 
business are currently projected to be about $4,890 M. 
   In contrast to previous years when US commercial space sales had 
shown double digits growth rates, this year's projected results are 
driven by the US satellite manufacturing industry, where sales are 
projected to drop from 12 satellites worth $1,300 M in 1992 to 7 
satellites worth $ 670 M in 1993.  The US Industrial Outlook also 
projects U.S. commercial launchers faces flat demand in coming year, 
and while predicting that 1993 revenues will increase 10 percent to 
$450 M, future sales will be "adversely affected by the downward 
revision in Department of Defense launch plans."                           
   Offsetting flat launch revenues and satellite deliveries, 
revenues for fixed and mobile satellite services are projected to 
increase to $1,900 M, primarily driven by increased revenues from 
broadcast and cable TV networks.  Similarly, remote sensing products 
and sales are projected to increase to $250 M in 1993 (up 15%). 

 US COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUES     1989  1990   1991 1992(r) 1993(e)
 Commercial satellites             900 1,000  1,100  1,300     670
 Satellite services                750   800  1,200  1,500   1,900
   Fixed                          (700) (735)(1,115)(1,275) (1,520)
   Mobile                          (50) ( 65)(   85)(  225) (  380)
 Satellite ground equip            790   860  1,350  1,400   1,560
   Mobile equipment                (40)  (85)  (280)  (352)    ???
 Commercial launches               150   570    380    450     450
 Remote sensing data and services  125   155    190    215     250
 Private microgravity research lab  --    --     --     --      60
                                 ===== =====  ======  =====   =====
   TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES         2,715 3,385   4,220  4,815   4,890
        (r) = revised data for 1992   (e) = estimated data for 1993
   [Commentary: This is the first look at how the US commercial 
space industry is expected to do in 1993.  In general, not a bad 
report -- with most of the bad news concentrated in the satellite 
manufacturing area.  There, changes of only a few satellites worth 
$100 M or so apiece can substantially influence the annual 
projection.  If we look forward over several years, this market 
sector should retain strong sales as US firms have been very 
successful in regaining international market share in the satellite 
business. 
   Furthermore, sales of satellite ground equipment should go up in 
the next revision of this data, expected to be released about mid-
year.  Data on mobile satellite ground equipment sales (including 
such items as GPS receivers and portable satellite terminals) 
appears to be missing from the January data set.  DoC usually 
publishes a listing of  "Space Business Indicators" in mid-year, and 
the next revision of commercial space revenues should be released 
then.  I expect the revised revenues should easily top $5,000 M, if 
the mobile satellite ground equipment are added back into the 
numbers, and the year should show about a 10% overall market growth. 
   Looking beyond this year's data, future markets look quite 
promising.  The DoC projects satellite service revenues could top 
$3,000 M by 1995 if new mobile satellite services and direct 
broadcasting are implemented as planned, and that mobile satellite 
station sales are expected to continue to growth at 15-20 % per year 
through the mid 1990's.  My numbers are somewhat more pessimistic 
for near-term market growth, but I agree the trend should be for 
substantial growth in US commercial space sales over at least the 
next 5-10 years.  (My pessimism is due to more conservative 
assumptions on market capture and growth in LEO communications and 
satellite direct broadcasting services.  I don't believe all of the 
current players in the yet-to-be-born LEO communications satellite 
market and in the yet-to-be-proven direct broadcasting market will 
be financial successes, nor that sales growth will be as explosive 
as currently projected.) 
   It should also be noted this year's DoC data is the first 
release to show revenues from privately funded microgravity research 
facilities.  The $60 M shown in the Janurary data is primarily for 
the Spacehab module, planned for launch in April on the Space 
Shuttle, but also hidden in these numbers are the projected first 
sales from the COMET orbital launch and recovery experiment module.] 

2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
   McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which builds and markets the Delta 
launch vehicle has won two important launch contracts.  Motorola 
Inc. announced in mid February that it had selected the Delta to 
launch most of the satellites in the 66-satellite Iridium LEO 
communications constellation, and in mid April, McDonnell Douglas 
was awarded the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle III contract. 
   The launch services contract with Motorola for the Iridium 
constellation launch is for at launch of least 45 Iridium 
satellites.  Another 21 satellites have been contracted to be 
launched by Khrunichev Enterprise in Russian on 3 Proton vehicle 
launches.  These 45 satellites planned for the Delta will be 
launched 5 at a time,  providing for at least 9 launches.  
Additional satellites in the Iridium constellation, such as a 
planned on-orbit spares, may also be launched on Delta.  Although 
details of the launch services contract were reported to be 
negotiation, and not yet final. 
   The USAF MLV contract also went to MDC, bidding a variant of 
their Delta II launcher.  This contract is only initially worth $7.5 
million, but establishes a set of launch options for up to 36 
launches, encompassing launches from 1996 through 2002.  These 
launches will deploy the next generation of the USAF's Global 
Positioning System Block IIR navigation satellites, plus other 
programs.  First option for to meet the USAF launch options is 
expected to be exercised this year, after which the USAF is expected 
to request launches of up to 6 Deltas per year for at least 6 years.  
Under this contract the USAF can also request "launch on demand" 
services from MDC for the 1996-2002 time period, with a launch to 
occur within 40 days of the request. 
    [Commentary:  If these two contracts are fulfilled, they should 
provide an excellent business base for MDC's Delta launch program 
through the turn of the century.  Combined, these two contracts have 
a potential for about 45 launches, worth about $2,200 M to MDC, and 
sustaining a core business base of $300-400 M/year.  Other contracts 
for international and commercial payloads, as well as for NASA 
Medium ELV-class payloads, will add to this business base -- keeping 
MDC as a viable commerical launch company. 
    However, it should be noted there are risk elements in these 
contracts.  Motorola's Iridium LEO communications constellation has 
not yet received a US Federal Communications Commission license for 
operation in the U.S., nor has Motorola lined up all the financing 
and financial partners for the Iridium venture.  Without these 
approvals or financial backing there will be no Iridium launches.  
But, hopefully, these uncertainties will be settled this year. 
   Similarly, the USAF MLV III program has been the target of 
several Congressional actions which have slowed the production of 
the GPS Block IIR satellites and deleted the funding for the MLV III 
program in favor of the USAF NLS/"Spacelifter" program.  At this 
time, while it appears the MLV III contract will be executed, future 
funding for the MLV III and other USAF commercial launch contracts 
is being reconsidered as part of national space launch strategy 
reviews.  Some opinions expressed from within the Administration and 
Congress propose cancellation of all "ELV upgrade" programs 
(including the MLV programs) in favor of the proposed "Spacelifter" 
program.  Such opinions may have some weight in this year's budget 
deliberations, particularly as DoD funds will be more difficult to 
find in the shrinking US Defense budget.] 
 
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
   The first commercial license to operate a remote sensing 
satellite was approved in early February by the US Department of 
Commerce's Office of Space Commerce.  A license was granted to 
WorldView Imaging Corporation of Oakland, California to build and 
operate a pair of LEO imaging satellites to provide multi-spectral 
images of the Earth. 
   [Commentary:  There has been little data released on this venture 
by WorldView and the DoC, other than the announcement of the 
operating and construction license.  This was reported to be at the 
request of WorldView.  Most industry speculation identifies this new 
venture as a "Star Wars" spinoff, using SDI-type technology to 
provide digital Earth sensing data, and heavily integrated into 
digital GIS databases for remote sensing/GIS users.  Most probable 
customers for this service include exploration geologists, 
agricultural planners, and urban planners.  
   It is noteworthy this is the first commercial venture under the 
1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act.  The Act, as passed last 
November, provides that remote sensing data gathered from private remote 
sensing craft may be sold to users at differing prices.  Prior to 
this act, remote sensing data from all satellites had to be sold to 
all users at the same prices, and private remote sensing ventures 
would have had to sell at the government-set Landsat data prices. 
   There are rumors of several other potential commercial remote 
sensing ventures working their way through the system at different 
stages of development.  I think the large Landsat and SPOT satellite 
systems will provide the majority of the satellite remote sensing 
data market for the next decade or so.  In contrast to these large, 
government-sponsored remote sensing systems, smaller market ventures 
such as WorldView and others can exploit market niches and use 
innovative technology, and I believe, can find profitability on the 
margin.  I predict there may be some very interesting ventures 
appearing in the next year or so.] 
                 
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT" 
   Wall Street investment house Morgan Stanley thinks General 
Dynamic's Space Systems Division could still be a moneymaker, 
despite having failed in the last 3 Atlas launches.  In a recent 
analyst's report Morgan Stanley said "We are more than ever 
convinced that if the company can return the Atlas to its historical 
95%-plus success rate, this will become a highly profitable, cash-
generating unit."  Based upon discussions with GD's corporate 
management, Morgan Stanley projects that if the Atlas problems are 
cleared up the unit could see $70 M in earnings per year by 1995 and 
$100 M per year by 2000.  This is based upon GD's projection of 
capturing about 10 Atlas launches per year on the world market. 
   [Commentary:  Three failures in a row of their launch system has 
hurt General Dynamic's Space Systems Division.  Since GD has 
restructured to only keep a very few profitable core businesses, 
many market pundits have been speculating GD's space business might 
be next to be sold.  The Morgan Stanley report indicates GD's Space 
Systems Division has some potential as a moneymaker, despite current 
problems -- if they can get their act together.  Sales are projected 
to be about $560 M in 1993, which will probably generate a loss of 
about $25 M.  If GD can capture their projected share of the space 
launch market, and if they have managed to clean up the reliability 
of their Atlas launchers, then they could generate healthy profits 
from those sales.  But until they demonstrate the Atlas Centaur 
program is back on track, this division will continue to show 
substantial losses. 
   In response to the sell-off rumors, in my opinion, this operation 
is not a really good candidate for takeover and quick profitability.  
To do such a takeover, the current set corporate and divisional 
management would be replaced with another set from outside the firm.  
In GD SSD's case, to get the division back on track, the management 
team will have to concentrate hard on the technical problems with 
the Atlas Centaur, as well as in selling Atlas services.  This would 
indicate only another firm with experience in rocket launch 
operations could find such talent in-house, and be able to convince 
customers to buy their launch services.  Optimally, the firm would 
have substantial liquid rocket experience, and experience in 
marketing space technology internationally as well.  Candidates for 
this might be TRW, Rockwell, Lockheed, and Martin, and possibly 
McDonnell Douglas and Boeing.  But most of those firms have cash 
flow problems (MDC), have had a substantial business contraction 
(Boeing and MDC), are involved with other launch firms (Lockheed), 
or have taken on substantial debt (Martin).  And coming up with the 
$700-1500 M purchase price for the division is a big chunk of 
change for any company.] 
 
5 - ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
   Arianespace, the operator of the Ariane launch system, is 
projecting a dip in launch demand in the late 1990's.  In early 
February, Arianespace released their annual market survey, which 
detailed their projection of the space transportation market for the 
next decade. 
   Over short run, Arianespace expects to retain their dominant 
position and sustain a majority share of the launch market.  Of 54 
international and commercial launches planned through 1995, Ariane 
holds contracts for 31, General Dynamics' Atlas vehicle holds 14 
contracts, McDonnell Douglas' Delta holds 7, and Great Wall's Long 
March vehicle holds 2 launch contracts. 
   Three-quarters of future launch contracts for which Ariane can 
compete are projected to come from communications satellites with 
the remaining 25% split between weather, Earth observation, and 
scientific satellites.  Most of the future telecommunications demand 
growth is predicted to come from the Asia/Pacific region. 
   Arianespace expects the current market consolidation of 
individual satellite operators into regional or national groups will 
continue, with these groups investing in heavier satellites with 
larger communications payloads carrying more transponders. 
Arianespace predicts the average mass of telecommunications 
satellites should increase by 20 % over today's average level, to 
about 3000 kg in GEO. 
   Demand for commercial launch services is expected to remain 
strong over the next three years, but in the second half of the 
decade, Arianespace predicts demand will decrease.  Arianespace 
bases this prediction upon a matching of satellite transponder 
demand and supply,  particularly as new data compression techniques 
appear to could double or triple transponder capacity using existing 
or near-term transponders. 
   One of the significant possible changes in the market was 
identified as the arrival of new launch vehicles, including Russian 
launch systems.  But Arianespace predicts that in the long term, 
investors purchasing launch services are looking for the best trade 
off between launch service quality and price, and that Russian and 
other new launch services will have to prove out their capabilities 
and service quality, and their market penetration will be minimal. 
   [Commentary:  Ariane releases their market surveys annually, and 
I reported on their prior market survey in a past issue of CSN/STI.  
Comparing the two surveys, there aren't outstanding differences in 
the numbers.   The most notable change is the consideration of new 
data compression techniques, reducing the demand for new physical 
transponders on orbit.
   I note that in contrast to some predictions, demand for space-
based communications transponders appears to be remain strong. While 
fiber optic lines are making substantial inroads into the 
established point-to-point telecommunications markets, growing 
demand for telecommunications services world wide and for point-to-
multipoint broadcast services have prevented a decrease in space 
transponder demand.  Fiberoptic cables provide a higher capability 
service, but only from established point A to established point B. 
To establish a fiberoptic link it is necessary to install cable 
between the points, and while there are improved network solutions, 
installing a large network of distributed fiberoptic links can cost 
millions or billions of dollars.  
   For broadcast services where there is not an existing ground 
network structure, satellites still offer the most cost effective 
solution.  And if new services are required into a new region, it is 
cheaper to install a small satellite link costing only a few tens of 
thousands of dollars and tie into the existing global satellite 
network.  This allows rapid growth of new satellite services, and 
has kept demand high.  The replacement market for fiberoptics is 
growing as well, since as demand grows between the points serviced, 
it becomes cost effective to later install a fiberoptic link to 
handle the increase in traffic. 
   Since the telecommunications and data transfer markets are still 
growing rapidly, satellite market projections remain rosy.  But 
satellites are also getting longer orbital lifetimes.  Current 
generation satellites are now getting guarantees of at 15 years of 
on-orbit service or more, in contrast to 10 years of service from 
last generation's satellites.  This has cut back some of the launch 
demand, as satellite owners are rescheduling replacement satellite 
launches over longer intervals. 
   And as last note; Arianespace didn't flag it this year, but it 
looks like the space transportation market will be rather over-
supplied by existing launch systems in the near term.  The annual 
commercial launch demand is for about 15-20 medium sized satellites 
per year.  From the supply side, Ariane is capable of launching up 
to about a dozen medium sized satellites a year, Delta is capable of 
about 9-12 per year, Atlas is capable of 6-12, Long March 4-8, 
Japan's H-Vehicle 2-4, Russia's Proton capable of 8, and other 
systems such as Zenit and Soyuz another 10-20 medium launches per 
year.  That's a lot of capability for a small market. 
   We can only expect the competition to intensify for commercial 
launches.]

6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT 
   The 9 Feb Pegasus launch by Orbital Sciences Corporation has 
spawned an investigation over an apparent violation of range safety 
rules.  A valid abort order from a NASA range safety officer to halt 
the mission was overridden and the Pegasus was launched in violation 
of range safety rules.  
   In the last few minutes of the Pegasus launch countdown, one of 
two abort command receivers aboard the Pegasus failed.  Such a failure 
typically scrubs a launch,and a NASA range safety officer at 
Wallops Island, VA issued a mission abort order about a minute 
before the scheduled Pegasus launch.  Somehow this command was 
overridden by the OSC launch team or the message was lost in the 
communications channels, and the Pegasus was launched despite the 
valid abort call. 
   Fortunately, the Pegasus functioned as expected, and the abort 
command receiver was not needed.  But this incident did spark an 
investigation since a valid abort order was given under agreed-to 
launch constraint rules, and was not obeyed. 
   Leading the investigation is the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) with support from NASA, OSC, and the Air Force.  This 
investigation marks the first time NTSB has taken the lead on an 
incident involving a space launch.  According to the NTSB, their 
investigation will take about 6 months, and is primarily looking at 
lines of authority, communications links and safety procedures used 
in the launch. 
  [Commentary: This is the first time that the NTSB has led an 
investigation into a space launch.  Their leadership was requested 
by the Department of Commerce's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation, who had licensed the commercial launch.  
   At the time of writing this column, some of the initial 
investigations have been concluded, and some of the results are 
starting to leak out into the trade press.  Apparently, 3 or four 
different communications channels were in use during the test. After 
the abort destruct receiver stopped responding, the NASA test 
director and range controller in the Mission Control room at Wallops 
Island gave abort orders about a minute before the launch.  
According to the mission rules, this should have stopped the launch. 
Somehow, the OSC test conductor ordered the abort reversed, and the 
NASA communicator on the net relayed that order to the B-52 carrying 
the Pegasus at about 22 seconds before launch.  Differing 
explainations of exactly how this happened are proposed -- with the 
best set being that clear lines of communications and clear 
definition of the responsibilities of the mission control team, and 
understanding of the mission rules were not established before the 
launch.  
   As we see more and more commercial launches, more of these 
procedural issues are going to crop up and will have to be resolved.   
This case is interesting because it is the first time the NTSB has 
been called in to investigate a commercial launch problem (as they 
do with commercial aircraft problems).  
   I think this problem will turn out to be primarily problems with 
procedures and communications, and will be cleared up with issuance 
of guidelines on how launch communications should be set up and how 
specific lines of authority should be delineated.] 

7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
   Tsniimach Enterprise in Russia announced it is marketing a new 
small space launch system, based upon converted ICBM components.  
Two versions of the launcher are being marketed: the "Aerokosmos" 
winged vehicle launched like the OSC Pegasus, and the "Severkosmos", 
launched from a mobile ground transporter.  The Aerokosmos is 
projected to deliver 900 kg to a 200 km circular orbit or 580 kg to 
an 800 km circular orbit, and the Severkosmos to be capable of 430 
kg to 200 km orbits and 225 kg to 800 km.  Also proposed to be used 
with these launch systems is a LEO data relay system called 
'Sineva'.  Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection of 
spacecraft and which has participated in the development of the 
Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 
   [Commentary: There's very little released information on this new 
venture.  My suspicion is it is another Russian enterprise looking 
for hard currency and trying to capitalize upon their in-house 
knowledge of ex-Soviet launch systems.  It adds to the list of numerous 
commercial space startups announced from the ex-Soviet Union. 
   This one's a little different in that they are offering variants 
of ex-Soviet ICBMs, but I can't identify any key customers being 
targeted or substantial financial backing.]

8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
   In late January, Georgia Tech Research Institute released the 
results of a preliminary study on the feasibility of a commercial 
rocket launching site in Camden County, Georgia at the old Kingsland 
Missile Test Launching Site on the Atlantic coast.  The preliminary 
study recommended the site not be pursued as a commercial launch 
site, stating reopening the site was not feasible due to projected 
low investment returns, plus environmental and other geographic 
considerations.  However, the report did say the site might be ideal 
for other aerospace uses, and recommended other potential uses. 
   [Commentary:  This should put the nails in the coffin of the 
Kingsland Commercial Launch Site.  While other sites are still 
proceeding with commercial launch site development plans, Kingsland 
found without a key customer to act as anchor tenant, and if 
substantial infrastructure had to be put in, then the expected 
returns were too low to justify the cost of development.  
   This might point out some key discriminators in judging the 
feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include:
  - Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage 
sufficient to recover setup costs?
  - Is there a market advantage of using the site?
  - Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site?
  - Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the 
investment?  
   Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
   In one of his last official acts, former President Bush 
authorized space technology transfer for several joint space 
ventures between US and other firms.  One of these was a proposed 
use of US technology by Spain to build a small booster.  With that 
regulatory impediment removed, the 3-stage Capricornia launch 
vehicle will start development later this year, planning for a first 
launch in the 1995/96 time period.  The Capricornia is described as 
a small 3-stage all solid booster designed to put 250-500 Kg into 
LEO.  Several launch sites are being examined for the system, 
including 2 on the Iberian peninsula and 1 on the Canary Islands.  
Originated by INTA in Spain, the project reports it has $ 30 M in 
development funding, and will use technology from Argentina's Condor 
launch vehicle as well as from the US. 
   [Commentary:  Several firms have identified a market opportunity 
in providing a small launcher for the European market.  Small 
payloads from European firms or organizations currently use either 
Ariane piggyback launches or the US/Italian Scout launcher.  
However, Ariane piggyback opportunities are limited, and the Scout 
program is being phased out (accompanied by some disarray in the 
Italian government and space industry regarding any follow-on 
system).  
   This has left an apparent niche for a new European small launch 
system.  Surprisingly enough, ESA has not supported development of 
such a system within the current space funding structure.  Studies 
have been performed by British Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Deutsche 
Aerospace, and Italian organizations, but with the exception of the 
Swedish/PacAstro system (reported below), I have not been able to 
find any other European development work with even a rumor of 
funding for hardware. 
   Also of interest is the linking of the Capricornia to the 
Argentinian Condor launcher.  There have been some interesting 
rumors surfacing out of Argentina over the past year about a space 
launcher/IRBM program funded under the military junta which ruled 
the country in the 1970's and early 1980's. 
   What is known is in Feb 1992, the Argentinian Air Force formally 
transferred control of the Condor 2 missile program to the new 
civilian Argentinian national space agency (Comison Nacional de 
Atividades Espaciales - CNAE).  The Condor 2 program was described 
as originating in 1983, expanding upon the smaller Condor 1 rocket 
program in collaboration with Egypt and with support of German 
firms.  The Condor 2 was also reportedly funded indirectly by Iraq 
in the mid-1980's.  Fairly large solid rocket motors were built and 
tested, but Argentinan development of a suitable guidance package 
lagged that of the propulsion system. 
   It should be noted CNAE is planning to launch its first 
scientific satellite in late 1994.  The US$ 9 M, 181 Kg, SAC-B 
satellite will study the Earth's upper atmosphere and includes 
cooperative experiments from Italy and the US. No launch vehicle has 
yet been selected, but OSC's Pegasus and the Russian Burlak Air 
launched rocket are reported to be strong contenders for this 
contract.] 

10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
   PacAstro, a small launch firm in Herndon, Virginia announced in 
late February it had received a $6 M launch reservation contract 
from the Swedish Space Corp to launch a satellite on PacAstro's PA-2 
launch vehicle.   This will be performed as part of the Polar 
Satellite Service (PSS), a joint Norwegian Space Center/ Swedish 
Space Corp. program to upgrade the Andoya Rocket Range in Norway and 
offering small satellite launches into the polar regions.  According 
to PacAstro, PSS is also performing an $8 M upgrade of the Andoya 
launch facilities, including a new integration facility and a fully-
enclosed vertical assembly building for small launch vehicles like 
the PacAstro PA-2.  PacAstro has been chosen as "the main 
alternative rocket supplier" for the small satellite launch service 
to be offered by PSS from Andoya.  The date of the launch of the 
Swedish satellite was not specified. 
   [Commentary:  PacAstro has been trying to line up customers and 
funding for their launch vehicle for some time now.  The PA-2 is a 
small, two stage rocket fueled by RP-1 and Liquid Oxygen.  From 
PacAstro's literature, the engines designed for the PA-series 
rockets are built of "off the shelf" components based upon the Lunar 
MOdule Descent Engines built by TRW, and are capable of putting a 
225 Kg satellite into a 750 km circular polar orbit.  
   PacAstro is trying to arrange construction financing for its 
first three PA-2 vehicles, with a first launch planned for 1995, and 
2 orbital launches planned for 1996.  My records show PacAstro hired 
TRW to provide marketing support and systems design,  with primary 
engineering to be done by AeroAstro, a small satellite builder 
closely associated with PacAstro (headquartered in the same 
building).  The Swedish Space Corporation would supply engineering, 
launch operations, vehicle subsystems, and marketing support. 
Sumitomo Corp. of Tokyo, is a first round investor and sits on the 
board of directors.  
   PacAstro has gotten a first round financial package of at least 
$550 K  (Some sources place this of high as $1 M), but has been 
searching for about a year for the additional $20-30 M needed to 
design, build and launch their first set of vehicles. 
   The launch reservation from SSC can possibly be used to help 
bring some investors on board, but by my estimate, they will need 
much more than the single $6 M sale to put their venture into real 
hardware.] 

11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
    In early March, it was reported a joint satellite communications 
venture between a Taiwanese and mainland Chinese was in the works.  
As reported in the Taipei press, China Development Corp. (CDC), 
headquartered in Taiwam and with links to the ruling Nationalist 
Party, is planning to set up a joint venture in Hong Kong with China 
Great Wall Industry Corp. with the objective of launching a regional 
communications satellite. CDC would cover about 10% of the satellite 
system cost (US $10 M) in exchange for rights to 10% of the 
satellite's communications channels.  
   [Commentary:  This announcement came close on the heels of the 
release of Taiwanese plans for space development (released in mid 
January).   In those plans, the National Space Program Office of 
Taiwan will launch 3 satellites, starting with ROCSAT-1, a 400 Kg 
scientific spacecraft, planned for launch in 1997.  Two additional 
satellites are planned, both communications satellites.   TRW has 
been helping Taiwan plan this program, budgeted at T$13.6 B (US $530 
M) through 2006.  
   I haven't been able to establish any relationship between this 
venture and those of the NSPOT, but there might be a connection.  
While Taiwan has the financing to pursue several ventures, the 
current Taiwanese telecommunications market might not support two 
separate sastellite ventures. 
   The reported name for the Tiawanese/Chinese system is "Asiasat-
2", but I don't thinks this has any relationship with the existing 
Hong Kong-based "Asiasat" program involving Chinese, Hong Kong, and 
other Asian investors, other than using it as an organizational 
model.  There are some obvious advantages to pursuing such a joing 
venture -- it could provide excellent first-hand experience to 
Taiwan for a very low cost, which then can be used in later 
satellite ventures.  But there are internal political issues between 
Taiwanese and Chinese ventures, but putting any joint venture 
through a  Hong Kong intermediary corporation might allow it to 
proceed. 
   In any case, the East Asian satellite market is lighting up with 
substantially growth projected in space services and revenues.  This 
is just another indicator to add to the list.] 

12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
   South Korea's Trade, Industry and Resources Ministry recently 
announced plans to invest US$22 B in research and development and 
another US$17 B into manufacturing and research facilities for 
advanced aerospace technologies.  Space technologies have been 
specifically targeted as part of this program, beginning with 
manufacture and launch of an advanced multi-purpose satellite by 
1997.  The objective of this investment is to raise South Korea's 
aerospace technology to the level of the world's top 10 countries by 
2000.                                 
   [Commentary: South Korea has been quietly working to develop its 
national aerospace industry, specifically including space 
activities. I'm noting this as a flag that potential new players are 
coming into the commercial space market. 
   As part of their national effort, 2 national telecommunications 
satellites for Korea Telecom will be launched in April and Oct 1995 
on Delta. Designated Koreasat 1 and 2, the platforms will provide 
television and telephone service throughout the Korean Peninsula, 
southwestern Japan and portions of China bordering North Korea. 
   South Korea launched its first small satellite piggyback on 
Ariane in Aug 1992, called Uribyol-1 (Our Star) and costing about US 
$8.8 M.  Uribyol-2 is planned for piggyback launch in October of 
this year, again on Ariane, and will be entirely "made in Korea."  
Uribyol-3, projected for a 1995 launch, will be an environment-
monitoring micro-satellite. 
   This satellite may be the precursor to a series of small Earth 
observation satellites,  The KEOS (Korean Earth Observation System) 
project, which has been submitted for approval to the South Korean 
government, would use two or three 300-kg spacecraft equipped with 
optical and microwave sensors.
   South Korean press reports claim there is also a parallel 
military effort to establish the capabilities for building and 
launching small military satellites by 2001.  Supposedly a 
government panel had been established to oversee such an effort, 
funded at US $ 500 M between 1993 and 2001, in anticipation of an  
expected pullout of U.S. intelligence-gathering systems from the 
Korean peninsula.       
   In conjunction with all of these reported efforts, South Korean 
is also pursuing production work either as off-sets to existing 
aerospace technology contracts (for example, McDonnell Douglas is 
offsetting production of some Delta parts to South Korean firms as 
part of the Koreasat launch contracts), or for production of 
consumer space items (among other products, South Korea exports 
satellite receiver television setups to Japan, and Samsung has 
announced teaming for production of OSC's Orbcomm user terminals.).  
   This looks like a very aggressive push into space technologies.  
Considering that East Asia is currently the fastest growing sector 
for commercial space services (primarily for telecommunications), a 
South Korean push into space technologies may change the composition 
of commercial space market there over the next decade.] 

13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
   As announced in the last CSN/STI, each issue will give the 
results of stock indexes and portfolios regarding space stocks and 
investments.  The table below summarizes results to the end of 
March.  The Space Technology Index did quite a bit better than the 
market as a whole, as represented by the S&P 500 index.  Since 90+% 
of the values included in the index are US firms, this represents a 
general increase in the market value of space-related firms.  The 
increase in the first quarter is more than in all of 1992 -- which 
is a very promising sign, although future months may reverse this 
trend. The Commercial Space Technology Index has also done quite 
well, but the Pure Play portfolio -- consisting of stocks of firms 
which are pure plays in space technologies -- has also surpassed its 
results in all of 1993.  We'll keep an eye on these ....

   INDEX RESULTS THROUGH MARCH
                           Beginning  Beginning      1 Jan 93 to
                           1992       1993           31 Mar 1993
                           -------    --------       --------
   S&P 500                 416        436  (+4.7%)   452  (+3.7%)
   Space Tech Index        267        304 (+13.6%)   373 (+22.7%)
   Comm'l Space Tech Index 167        194 (+16.3%)   222 (+14.2%)
   Space Tech Pure Plays   147        169 (+15.4%)   197 (+16.2%)


FINAL NOTES - 
    What?  This column's already full?  And I still have bunches of 
commercial space developments to report on.  As I said at the start 
of this, column there's been a lot of interesting happenings - but 
I'll have to put them into the next issue.  
   Looking ahead, I've got several articles in the works on new 
happenings with Iridium and the LEO communications satellite market, 
more news on international launchers appearing (and disappearing) on 
the market, new international commercial space ventures,  and other 
interesting developments. 
   And as always, I hope you folks find this stuff useful and 
interesting -- Any and all comments are welcome. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor  
"Felicitas multos habet amicos"             P.O. Box 2452 
                                        Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61208
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

   Two developments have brought these type of activities back to
the forefront in 1993.  First, in February, the Russians deployed a
20-m reflector from a Progress vehicle after it had departed from
the Mir Space Station.  While this "Banner" reflector was blank,
NPO Energia was very active in reporting that future  Banner
reflectors will be available to advertisers, who could use a space-
based video of their logo or ad printed on the Banner in a TV
commercial, as filmed from the Mir.
   The second development, has been that Space Marketing Inc, the
same company responsible for merchandising space on the Conestoga
booster and COMET spacecraft, is now pushing the "Environmental
Billboard".  As laid out by SMI Chief Engineer Dr Ron Humble of the
University of Colorado Space Laboratory and Preston Carter of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the "Environmental
Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
it will release ozone-building components that will literally
replenish the ozone layer." The remaining spacecraft will monitor
the atmosphere for another year before it, too, re-enters and burns
up and "adds to the ozone supply."
   This would not be a cheap advertisement, costing at least several
millions of dollars (exact costs were not available).  But SMI
estimates that market exposure would be 3-5X that of the people who
watched the SuperBowl, where a 30-second advertising 'unit' cost
$600,000.  Since SMI is located in Atlanta, Georgia, it is being
promoted as being available in time for the opening of the 1996
Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
  
But back to Brian's questions:
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
  
    See above. As for serious -- if they can get $15-20 M or so (my
estimate of $5-10 for development costs and a flight unit, plus
$10-15 M for a launch), then it's probably real.  They are claiming to
tailor the orbit to overfly specific locations at specific times for
optimum advertising impact so they probably can't piggy back upon
someone else's planned launch and will have to buy a dedicated
launch.  That's a $10-15 M cost they need to raise, right there.
    And there will probably be some legal challenges to this as
well.  Note there is one potential legal challenge to SMI on the use
of launch vehicle advertising already.  While I don't think the
legal challenges would win out (and yes, I am an amateur astronomer,
and no, I don't really like the idea of this additional light
pollution, but I know of no prohibition of it...),  the legal
challenges and court fights would probably remove any positive
aspects of the advertising.  I can imagine several ways to make the
advertisers look like louts for doing this -- which would change
positive market exposure to negative market exposure, and negate the
space advertising advantage.  (Would you spend $15 M to look like an
idiot?)
   (And light pollution might not be too bad -- if it's in a low
enough orbit, and it relies upon reflected light only, it would
only be visible for a short time just after local dusk and before
dawn.  For maximum market exposure, you want to have it visible just
after dusk --minimizing impact on astronomy, since that's the time
of worse seeing due to day/night thermal turbulence.  It might still
be a problem, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate this...)
    As for having real funding -- none that I can identify.  There
were about 60 expressions of interest made on the Conestoga
advertising opportunity, but that included curious folks and was for
only a $500,000 commitment.  I haven't heard of any serious funding
for this, but I'm sure they are shopping the venture around looking
for some money in order to flesh out the concept some more.  But I
am confident there are no firm or paying customers at this time.
  
   And if anybody wants to cross-post this to sci.astro, please be
my guest.  I don't have posting privileges to that area (or at least
I don't THINK I do...).
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61209
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (1 of 2)

Brian Yamauchi asks: [Regarding orbital billboards...]
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
  
    Well, I had been collecting data for next edition of the
Commercial Space News/Space Technology Investor... To summarize:
  
SPACE ADVERTISING
    First, advertising on space vehicles is not new -- it is very
common practice to put the cooperating organization's logos on the
space launch vehicle.  For example, the latest GPS launcher had the
(very prominent) logos on its side of
   - McDonnell Douglas (the Delta launcher)
   - Rockwell International (who built the GPS satellite)
   - USAF (who paid for the satellite and launch), and
   - the GPS/Navstar program office
   This has not been considered "paid advertising" but rather
"public relations", since the restrictions have been such that only
organizations involved in the launch could put their logos on the
side, and there was no money exchanged for this.  [However, putting
a 10' high logo on the side of the launch vehicle facing the cameras
is "advertising" as much as it is "public relations", in my
opinion.]  [And by the way, I note that the DC-X test vehicle has
rather prominent McDonnell-Douglas and SDIO logos on the side...]
   There have been several studies looking at the revenue potentials
for use of space vehicles for advertising, or placing large
advertising signs in orbit.  On the shuttle, for example, I know of
several serious studies in the early and mid 1980's which looked at
putting logos on the external tank, or on the sides of the payload
bay.  These ventures would be different than "public relations", in
that the logos or displays would not be restricted to the firms
participating on that flight, and would involve payment of sums for
the right to fly the logos in a prominent organization.  (For
example, painting the ET to look like a Pepsi can, or putting a
Disneyworld logo on the inside of the payload bay where the cameras
would scan past it.)
  
ADVERTS ON LAUNCH VEHICLES
   The first paid advertising was done on a Soviet launcher in about
1990, when several non-involved foreign organizations were allowed
to pay to put their logos on a Proton launch.  (An Italian shoe
company was one of the first advertisers, I remember.)  Similarly,
Soviet cosmonauts on Mir made a paid advertisement for the last
Olympic games, and have gleefully shown banners and other items from
participating firms and organizations.  Mars candy bars, for
example, got a plug from orbit as a sponsor of the launch of the
British visiting cosmonaut to Mir.
   Now US firms are starting to put paid advertisements on launch
vehicles.  The upcoming Conestoga launch (in June) putting the COMET
recoverable payload capsule into orbit will have paid advertisements
on the side, for Arnold Schwarzenegger's upcoming movie "The Last
Action Hero".  Besides the usual logos of the participating
organizations, Columbia pictures has paid $500,000 to put ads on the
main fuselage of the mission's Conestoga rocket, its booster
rockets, and on the COMET payload, which will orbit the Earth for
one month.  A concept for this advertising display was published in
Space News magazine a couple of months ago.
   (As a side note: Robert Lorsch, an advertising executive, is
talking about suing NASA.  He charges NASA with appropriating an idea he
created with the space agency in 1981 to form corporate advertising
sponsorships on NASA spacecraft as a way to get funding for the
space program.  Lorsch contends that in selling advertising space on
the upcoming COMET, NASA violated an agreement that it "would not use
his idea without him being the exclusive representative for NASA and
receiving compensation."   This is being disputed, since the launch
is a "commercial launch" and NASA is receiving none of the
advertising revenues, but the funding for the COMET program is
coming from NASA.)
  
ORBITAL "BILLBOARDS"
   Orbital "billboards" have been the staple of science fiction for
some time.  Arthur C. Clarke wrote about one example, and Robert
Heinlein described another in "The Man Who Sold the Moon".  Several
different potential projects have been developed, although none have
been implemented, but the most real prior to 1993 being the "Eiffel
II" project, which would have placed a large inflatable sculpture in
orbit to celebrate the French Republic's Bi-centennial.
                                                (cont)

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61210
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?

I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere
unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only
about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe --
and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61211
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: $1bil space race ideas/moon base on the cheap.

That is an idea.. The most efficient moon habitat.. 

also the idea of how to get the people off the moon once the prize was won..

Also the idea of how to rescue someone who is "dying" on the moon.

Maybe have a area where they can all "see" each other, and can help each other
if something happens.. 

I liek the idea of one prize for the first moon landing and return, by a
non-governmental body..

Also the idea of then having a moon habitat race.. 

I know we need to do somthing to get people involved..

Eccentric millionaire/billionaire would be nice.. We see how old Ross feels
about it.. After all it would be a great promotional thing and a way to show he
does care about commericalization and the people.. Will try to broach the
subject to him.. 

Moonbase on the cheap is a good idea.. NASA and friends seem to take to much
time and give us to expensive stuff that of late does not work (hubble and
such). Basically what is the difference between a $1mil peice of junk and a
multi $1mil piece of junk.. I know junk..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61212
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: 30826

I like option C of the new space station design.. 
It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..

Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...

Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
it..

Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to.. 

Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
lifter, I think).
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61213
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)

In article <1rbp6q$oai@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually  
>>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would  
>>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.
> 
> 
> Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,  
> 
> and besides.
> 
> Maybe she can't act:-)
> 
> pat
> 

Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..

Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost.. 

Heh of late, they way they have been having shuttle problems in the media,
anything can happen.. 

Imagine a Astronaut/Crew member to find themselves in the 24th Century as the
object of interest of an alien civilization, maybe rescued or helped by the ST
Enterprise...  I know Vegr and such was okay, but this could be better..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61214
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)

In article <1993Apr25.154449.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|
|Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
|lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..
|
|Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
>survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost.. 


Of course that asumes the mission was able to launch :-)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61215
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

     What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution,
crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.

   Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
   quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

   Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

Now, in the good old days before GRO data, it was thought the
gamma bursters were neutron stars in the galaxy, it was expected that
GRO would confirm this by either showing they were a local population
(within a few hundred light years) or that they were in the galactic
halo. (Mechanism was not known but several plausible ones existed)
(also to be fair it was noted that the _brightest_ burster was
probably in the LMC, suggesting theorists might be wrong back then...)
	As the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy a halo
population should show anisotropy (a local disk population is
ruled out completely at this stage) - to avoid the anisotropy you
have to push the halo out, the energy then gets large, the mechanism
of getting NS out that far becomes questionable, and we should start
to see for example the Andromeda's bursters.
	The data is consistent with either a Oort cloud distribution
(but only just) - but no one can think of a plausible source with
the right spectrum. Or, it can be a cosmological distances (hence
isotropy) and the edge is "the edge of the Universe" ;-)
If at cosmological distances you need very high energy (to detect)
and a very compact source (for spectrum), ergo a neutron star
colliding with another neutron star or black hole. Even then getting
the spectrum is very hard, but conceivable.

	If we know anything about physics at that level,
the bursters are not due to quantum black holes or cosmic
strings, wrong spectrum for one thing.

The situation is further complicated by recent claims that
there are two classes of sources ;-)  [in the colliding NS
they'd actually probably fit relatively easily into the
NS-NS and NS-BH collision scenarios respectively]

   my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
   hyperspace :-)

   but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
   are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
   if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

If you can think of one, remember to invite me to Stockholm...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61216
From: tom@igc.apc.org
Subject: computer cult


From: <tom>
Subject: computer cult

From scott Fri Apr 23 16:31:21 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.77 )
	id AA16121; Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Message-Id: <9304232331.AA16121@igc.apc.org>
From: Scott Weikart <scott>
Sender: scott
To: cdplist
Subject: Next stand-off?
Status: R

Redwood City, CA (API) -- A tense stand-off entered its third week
today as authorities reported no progress in negotiations with
charismatic cult leader Steve Jobs.

Negotiators are uncertain of the situation inside the compound, but
some reports suggest that half of the hundreds of followers inside
have been terminated.  Others claim to be staying of their own free
will, but Jobs' persuasive manner makes this hard to confirm.

In conversations with authorities, Jobs has given conflicting
information on how heavily prepared the group is for war with the
industry.  At times, he has claimed to "have hardware which will blow
anything else away", while more recently he claims they have stopped
manufacturing their own.

Agents from the ATF (Apple-Taligent Forces) believe that the group is
equipped with serious hardware, including 486-caliber pieces and
possibly Canon equipment.

The siege has attracted a variety of spectators, from the curious to
other cultists.  Some have offered to intercede in negotiations,
including a young man who will identify himself only as "Bill" and
claims to be the "MS-iah".

Former members of the cult, some only recently deprogrammed, speak
hesitantly of their former lives, including being forced to work
20-hour days, and subsisting on Jolt and Twinkies.  There were
frequent lectures in which they were indoctrinated into a theory of
"interpersonal computing" which rejects traditional roles.

Late-night vigils on Chesapeake Drive are taking their toll on
federal marshals.  Loud rock and roll, mostly Talking Heads, blares
throughout the night.  Some fear that Jobs will fulfill his own
apocalyptic prophecies, a worry reinforced when the loudspeakers
carry Jobs' own speeches -- typically beginning with a chilling "I
want to welcome you to the 'Next World' ".

- - -- 
Roland J. Schemers III              |            Networking Systems
Systems Programmer                  |            G16 Redwood Hall (415) 723-6740
Distributed Computing Group         |            Stanford, CA 94305-4122
Stanford University                 |            schemers@Slapshot.Stanford.EDU



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61217
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Order MOORE's book to restore Great Telescope

Several people have enquired about the availability of the book about the
Great 72" reflector built at Birr Castle, Ireland in 1845 which remained the
largest in the world until the the start of the 20th century.

"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" was written by Patrick Moore who now sits on
the committee which is going to restore the telescope. (The remains are on
public display all year round - the massive support walls, the 60 foot long
tube, and other bits and pieces). This book is the definitivie history of
how one man, the Third Earl of Rosse, pulled off the most impressive
technical achievement, perhaps ever, in the history of the telescope, and
the discoveries made with the instrument.

Patrick Moore is donating all proceeds from the book's sale to help restore
the telescope. Astronomy Ireland is making the book available world wide by
mail order. It's a fascinating read and by ordering a copy you bring the day
when we can all look through it once again that little bit nearer.

=====ORDERING INFORMATION=====
"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" Dr. Patrick Moore, xii, 90pp, 208mm x 145mm.
Price:
U.S.: US$4.95 + US$2.95 post & packing (add $3.50 airmail)
U.K. (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 1.50 post & packing
EUROPE (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 2.00 post and packing
REST OF WORLD: as per U.S. but funds payable in US$ only.

PAYMENT:
Make all payments to "Astronomy Ireland".
CREDIT CARD: MASTERCARD/VISA/EUROCARD/ACCESS accepted by email or snail
mail: give card number, name & address, expiration date, and total amount.
Payments otherwise must be by money order or bank draft.
Send to our permanent address: P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.

You can also subscribe to "Astronomy & Space" at the same time. See below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61218
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: Potential World-Bearing Stars?

In article <C5Dz7C.J0E@visix.com> dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist) writes:


   I'm on a fact-finding mission, trying to find out if there exists a list of
   potentially world-bearing stars within 100 light years of the Sun...
   Is anyone currently working on this sort of thing?  Thanks...

   Dan
   -- 

In principle, any star resembling the Sun (mass, luminosity) might have planets
located in a suitable orbit. There several within 100 ly of the sun. They are
single stars, for double or multiple systems might be troublesome. There's a
list located at ames.arc.nasa.gov somewhere in pub/SPACE. I think it is called
stars.dat. By the way, what kind of project, if I may know?

Rui
-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61219
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.


George.

	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.   If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61220
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>the "Environmental
>Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
>804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
>deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
>   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
>maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
>sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
>delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
>SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
>exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
>atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
>it will release ozone-building components that will literally
>replenish the ozone layer."
 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

 Can we assume that this guy studied advertising and not chemistry?  Granted 
it probably a great advertising gimic, but it doesn't sound at all practical.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61221
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Station Redesign (30826) Option C

In article <1993Apr25.151108.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> I like option C of the new space station design.. 
> It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..
> 
> Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...
> 
> Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
> it..
> 
> Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to.. 
> 
> Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
> lifter, I think).
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
> 
> 
> 
> 


This is a report, I got the subject messed up..

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61222
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: NASA Special Publications for Voyager Mission?

I have two books, both NASA Special Publications, on the Voyager 
Missions. One is titled "Voyages to Jupiter" the other "Voyage to Saturn" 
These were excellent books put together after the encounters with each 
planet. 

The question is: Did NASA ever put together a similar book for either the 
Uranus encounter or Neptune? If so, what SP number is it and where can it 
be obtained? If not, why didn't they?

--
  gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61223
From: bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Uwe Bonnes)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times


In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) asked:
|> 
|> Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
|> to compute sunrise and sunset times.
|> 
|> I would appreciate any advice.
|> 
|> Joe Wetstein
|> jpw@coe.drexel.edu

To compute this, and many other astronomical things, go and get (x)ephem written
by Elwood C. Downey. It is e.g. on export.lcs.mit.edu

Uwe Bonnes  bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61226
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
 Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
here ..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61227
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado)
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City

Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org

 > From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
 >
 > In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
 > daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:
 > > |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration
 > confernce> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the
 > auspices of AIAA.
 >
 > Thanks for typing that in, Steven.
 >
 > I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes
 > and ears there...

I plan to go.  It's about 30 minutes away from my home.
I can report on some of it (from my perspective ...)
Anyone else on sci.space going to be there?  If so, send me
netmail.  Maybe we can plan to cross paths briefly...
I'll maintain a list of who's going.

mark.prado@permanet.org

 * Origin: Just send it to bill.clinton@permanet.org
(1:109/349.2)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61228
From: HoffmanE@space1.spacenet.jhuapl.edu (Hoffman, Eric J.)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites

In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
(Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept."
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?


     TRIAD, the first drag-free satellite, was designed and built by the 
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and launched 2 Sept 1972.  The 
satellite was in three sections separated by two booms.  The central section 
housed the DISCOS Disturbance Compensation System, which consisted of a proof 
mass of special non-magnetic alloy housed within a spherical cavity.  The 
proof mass flew a true gravitational orbit, free from drag and radiation 
pressure.  Teflon microthrusters kept the body of the satellite centered 
around the proof mass, thereby flying the entire satellite drag free.

     TRIAD was one of the APL-designed Navy Navigation Satellites.  The 
2nd-generation operational navigation satellites flying today (NOVA) use a 
single-axis version of DISCOS.  TRIAD was also the sixth APL satellite to be 
powered by an RTG (APL flew the first nuclear power supply in space, in 1961).

     Further info on TRIAD, DISCOS, etc. can be found in "Spacecraft Design 
Innovations in the APL Space Department," Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 
Vol. 13, No. 1 (1992).

                                                      --Eric Hoffman








Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61229
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
looked into possible problems with the detectors?

That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
things?

Graydon

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61230
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)

As for SF and advertising in space. There is a romantic episode
in Mead's "The Big Ball of Wax" where the lovers are watching 
the constellation Pepsi Cola rising over the horizon and noting
the some 'stars' had slipped cause the Teamsters were on strike.

This was the inspiration for my article on orbiting a formation
of space mirrors published in Spaceflight in 1986. As the reviews
said: this seems technically feasible, and could be commercially viable
but is it aesthetically desirable?  These days the only aesthetics
that count are the ones you can count!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61231
From: pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
> looked into possible problems with the detectors?

> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
> things?

> Graydon

That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses
and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be-
fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the
only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot
locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With
two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector
to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors,
one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these
locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the 
sky), voila, you have an error box.

BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.

You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe
(in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen
in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be
a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss
neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.

Peter
peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61232
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes:
>In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes:
>> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
>>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.
>
>Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
>from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra
>Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."
>
>I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme
>care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in
>the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not
>surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
>everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

Level 5 refers to the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute's
Capability Maturity Model.  This model rates software development
org's from1-5.  with 1 being Chaotic and 5 being Optimizing.  DoD is
beginning to use this rating system as a discriminator in contracts.  I
have more data on thifrom 1 page to 1000.  I have a 20-30 page
presentation that summarizes it wethat I could FAX to you if you're
interested...
Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM

(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61233
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.


If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
rays?

How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
megaparsec^2 is OK.


--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61234
From: kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA])
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote:
: I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
: one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
: Crystal City.  [...]

I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
You can retrieve them from:
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif
  ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif

The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing
charts.

These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days,
so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took
me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
but it's out of space.

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

     "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
     the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61235
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: 
 > 
 > 
 > SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
 > that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.
 >  

I haven't heard any hint of a re-boost, or that any is needed.

 > 
 > why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
 > thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
 > cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   

Nasty, dirty combustion products!  People have gone to monumental efforts to
keep HST clean.  We certainly aren't going to bolt any thrusters to it.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61236
From: n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?


I can tell you that when AMSAT launched some birds along a Spot satellite
(French), that during installation of some instruments on Spot 2, there
heavily armed legionaires who had a `take no prisoners' look on there faces.
Spot satellites are completely capable of doing some very good on orbit
surveillance.

BMc
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61237
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:

>In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
> Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
>here ..
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.

Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same 
reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.

Pat writes:
George.

	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.

I say: 
	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
	discrimination, and violence against others of different
	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.

Pat says:
If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

I say:
What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
and unspoiled things, including the night sky.

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferish Observatory           <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61238
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>....
>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
> 
>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not
_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't
remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon, when
one of them drops a fob watch.  They then speculate about the reaction
of the natives to finding such a thing, dropped straight down from heaven.
But the notion is not pursued further than that.

-Scott
--------------------                          New .sig under construction
Scott I. Chase                                     Please be patient
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                                   Thank you 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61239
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: I want that Billion

In article <C5x86o.8p4@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1r6rn3INNn96@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>>of a private Titan pad? 
>
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
>no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
>lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
>build something HLV-sized anyway.
>
>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
>would have far better cost-effectiveness.

Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest
wins. 

Ohhh, you want to put in FINE PRINT which says "Thou shall do wonderous R&D
rather than use off-the-shelf hardware"? Sorry, didn't see that in my copy.
Most of the Pournellesque proposals run along the lines of <some dollar
amount> reward for <some simple goal>.  

You go ahead and do your development, I'll buy off the shelf at higher cost (or
even Russian; but I also assume that there'd be some "Buy US" provos in there)
and be camped out in the Moon while you are launching and assembling little
itty-bitty payloads in LEO with your laser or gas gun.  And working out the
bugs of assembly & integration in LEO. 

Oh, hey, could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I
wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...




    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61240
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.

In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>Voyager  has the unusual  luck to be on a stable trajectory out of the
>solar system.   All it's doing is collecting  fields  data,  and routinely
>squirting it down.  One of the mariners is also in stable
>solar orbit,  and still providing similiar  solar data.  

There are no Mariner craft from which we are still receiving data.  I believe
you are referring to one or more of Pioneers 6 through 9 (launched from
December 1965 through November 1968), which were put into solar orbits to study
interplanetary space.  I recall reading that at least one of them was still
functioning 25 years after launch.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61241
From: PPORTH@hq.nasa.gov ("Tricia Porth (202")
Subject: Remote Sensing Data

=================================================================
I am posting this for someone else.  Please respond to the 
address listed below.  Please also excuse the duplication as this 
message has been crossposted.  Thanks!
=================================================================
 
 
      REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES 
                             VIA THE INTERNET
 
NASA is planning to expand the domain of users of its Earth and space science
data.  This effort will:
 
  o   Use the evolving infrastructure of the U.S. Global Change Research 
      Program including the Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE) and the Earth 
      Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Programs.
 
  o   Use the Internet, particularly the High Performance Computing and 
      Communications Program's NREN (National Research and Education 
      Network), as a means of providing access to and distribution of 
      science data and images and value added products.
 
  o   Provide broad access to and utilization of remotely sensed images in 
      cooperation with other agencies (especially NOAA, EPA, DOE, DEd, 
      DOI/USGS, and USDA). 
 
  o   Support remote sensing image and data users and development 
      communities. 
 
The user and development communities to be included (but not limited to) as
part of this effort are educators, commercial application developers (e.g., 
television weather forecasters), librarians, publishers, agriculture 
specialists, transportation, forestry, state and local government planners, and
aqua business.
 
This program will be initiated in 1994.  Your assistance is requested to 
identify potential applications of remote sensing images and data.  We would 
like your ideas for potential application areas to assist with development of
the Implementation Plan.
 
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.  
 
We are seeking your ideas in these areas: 
 
  (1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images; 
 
  (2)  Potential noncommercial use of remote sensing data and images in 
       education (especially levels K-12) and other noncommercial areas;
 
  (3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data more 
       accessible;
 
  (4)  Additional points of contacts for ideas; and 
 
  (5)  Addresses and names  from whom to request proposals. 
 
For your convenience, a standard format for responses is included below.  Feel
free to amend it as necessary.  Either e-mail or fax your responses to us by
May 5, 1993.
 
E-MAIL:   On Internet "rsdwg@orion.ossa.hq.nasa.gov"  ASCII  - No binary 
attachments please
 
FAX:   Ernie Lucier, c/o RSDWG, NASA HQ, FAX 202-358-3098
 
Survey responses in the following formats may also be placed in the FTP 
directory ~ftp/pub/RSDWG on orion.nasa.gov.  Please indicate the format. 
Acceptable formats are: Word for Windows 2.X, Macintosh Word 4.X and 5.X, and 
RTF.  
 
 
 
----------------------------RESPONSE FORMAT--------------------------
 
REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES VIA THE INTERNET
 
(1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images  (if possible,
identify the relevant types of data or science products, user tools, and
standards).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)  Uses of remote sensing data and images in education (especially levels
K-12) and other noncommercial areas (if possible, identify the relevant types
of data or science products, user tools, and standards). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data and images
more accessible (if possible, identify relevant types of formats, standards,
and user tools)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4)  Additional suggested persons or organizations that may be resources for 
further ideas on applications areas.  Please include: Name, Organization, 
Address and Telephone Number.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(5)  Organizations, mailing lists (electronic and paper), periodicals, etc. to
whom a solicitation for proposals should be sent when developed.  Please 
include: Name, Organization, Address and Telephone Number.
 
 
 
(6)  We would benefit from knowing why users that know about NASA remote 
sensing data do not use the data.  Is it because they do not have ties to NASA
investigators, or high cost, lack of accessibility, incompatible data formats,
poor area of interest coverage, inadequate spatial or spectral resolution, ...?
 
 
 
 
 
(7)  In case we have questions, please send us your name, address, phone number
(and e-mail address if you have one).  If you don't wish to send us this
information, feel free to respond to the survey anonymously.  Thank you for
your assistance. 
 
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61242
From: pgf@space.mit.edu (Peter G. Ford)
Subject: Re: Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac

In article cnp@morrow.stanford.edu, ME.DMG@forsythe.stanford.edu (David Gaba M.D.) writes:
>Two and a half years ago I purchased a set of CD ROMs from the
>University of Colorado Lab for Atmos. and Space Physics.  They
>were Space Sciences Sampler and Voyagers to the Outer Planets.
>...
>With Pixel Pusher we could never get past messages something like
>This file has no PDS label, please fill in the following info
>(a bunch of slots with most zeros).  Yet, we could open the
>image file in Word and see the label file at the beginning.

The compressed image format used for the Voyager disks is not (yet)
supported by any Macintosh display software that I know of. However,
there does exist a program that can convert the images to a format that
is recognized by recent versions of both Pixel Pusher and NIH/Image. It
is called "PDS Decompress" and is available via anonymous ftp from the
"pub" directory on "delcano.mit.edu" [18.75.0.80]. This is a Binhex/
Stuffit archive and contains the application itself, Think-C source,
and a very brief description.

The most recent version of NIH/Image (1.48) may be down-loaded from
"starhawk.jpl.nasa.gov", where it is located in "image148.hqx" in the
"pub" directory. This archive also contains source code, but not the
documentation, which is located in the "image1455.hqx" archive in the
same directory.

Regards,
Peter G. Ford
Manager, Microwave SubNode
NASA Planetary Data System


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61243
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Life on Mars???

I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President,
but this is from last fall:

     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992

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

     "The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make
      anything."
        -- Edward John Phelps, American Diplomat/Lawyer (1825-1895)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61244
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics



                      LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists 
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all 
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single 
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically 
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! 

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he 
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of 
          space and time: 
    
               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." 
    
               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." 
    
               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE 
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward 
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light 
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL 
          DATUM"). 
      
               At each step in the development, Larson was able to 
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the 
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles 
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star 
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white 
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET 
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY 
          BURSTS). 
          
               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, 
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility 
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of 
          matter. 

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy 
          complex mathematics, in his books. 
    


          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
          
               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early 
          books are out of print now, but still available through 
          inter-library loan. 
    
               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) 
    
               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
    
               "Beyond Newton" (1964) 
    
               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) 
    
               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) 
    
               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) 
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super 
                                                            Collider".] 
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) 
     
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.] 
      
               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)

               All but the last of these books were published by North 
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and 
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local 
          university or public library doesn't have each of them. 

               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available 
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS), 
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the 
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.  
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly 
          journal "RECIPROCITY". 

          

          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
    
               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer 
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he 
          died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
          Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He 
          developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE 
          chemical properties based only on the elements used. 
    
               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one 
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is 
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider 
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same 
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX 
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, 
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC 
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. 
     
               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally 
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.  
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER 
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in 
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. 
    
               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been 
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now! 
    
               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe 
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of 
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who 
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", 
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED 
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. 
    
    
               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, 
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or 
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE 
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of 
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to 
          Minneapolis after retiring. 
    


          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
          
               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super 
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS 
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" 
          value. 
    
               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the 
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY 
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) 
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, 
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are 
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly 
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible 
          with their environment. 
    
               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a 
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not 
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE 
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! 
    
               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for 
          this WASTED money?! 
    
     
               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed 
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some 
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground 
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water 
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of 
          the "Supercollider"?! 
    
          
               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as 
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be 
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. 
      


          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
          
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of 
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more 
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the 
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, 
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". 
     
               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of 
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet, 
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their 
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each 
          other. 
      
               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical 
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension 
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our 
          MATERIAL half. 
       


          LARSONIAN Relativity
          
               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury 
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the 
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this 
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational 
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, 
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to 
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". 
    
               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results 
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by 
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his 
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH 
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. 
    
               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special 
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near 
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on 
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, 
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). 
     
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead 
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured 
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one 
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low 
          relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are 
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and 
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. 
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing 
          about this.] 
    
     
               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in 
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near 
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is 
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists 
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory, 
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is 
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS 
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.  
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward 
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of 
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL 
          FANTASY). 
    
                                    
          
          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE 
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific 
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456 
          pages, indexed, hardcover. 
    
               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that 
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. 
    
               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical 
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and 
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of 
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white 
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. 
    
               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL 
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with 
          OPEN MINDS! 
    
               The following is an example of his Theory's success: 
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL 
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING 
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding 
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's 
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he 
          had an immediate related explanation for them also. 
    

 
          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching 
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were 
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the 
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in 
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions 
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT 
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of 
          directional coincidence). 
    
               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of 
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the 
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the 
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls 
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the 
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and 
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can 
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at 
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do 
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all 
          directions uniformly.) 
    
               I wonder how close to us in space a source location 
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most 
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to 
          stop it! 
    
               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which 
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were 
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! 
    


          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
          
               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the 
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox 
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory 
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. 
    
               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY 
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of 
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey 
          B. Larson. 
    
               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is 
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" 
          and in some of his other books. 
    
               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate 
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow 
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE 
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each 
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the 
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal 
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and 
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually 
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and 
          lighter elements. 
    
               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the 
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I 
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron 
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms 
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some 
          of his books [better than I can]. 
    
               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the 
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less 
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center 
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to 
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The 
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and 
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN 
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. 
    
               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall 
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown 
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The 
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a 
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward 
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R 
          Diagram. 
    
               The chances of the two masses falling back into the 
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star 
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY 
          system, orbiting each other. 
     
               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE 
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the 
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown 
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron 
          stars", "black holes", etc.. 
    


          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the 
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single 
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf 
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably 
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected 
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS! 
      
               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all 
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive 
          his own version of Bode's Law. 
          


          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently 
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black 
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and 
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than 
          the sum of the two original "black holes". 
    
               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED 
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black 
          holes", etc.! 
    
               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about 
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is 
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is 
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black 
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want 
          to "prove" their theory. 
    
    
               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is 
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and 
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical 
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT! 
    
               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread 
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's 
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of 
          Unified Science). 
          
          
          
          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection 
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to 
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. 
    
               I found a possible clue about why they might work on 
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of 
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe.  I quote one paragraph: 
    
               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development 
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally 
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.  
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It 
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT 
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which 
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, 
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in 
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities 
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are 
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of 
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the 
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged 
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension 
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, 
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open 
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently 
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference 
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the 
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, 
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by 
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All 
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons 
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.  
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, 
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The 
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth 
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." 
          
               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are 
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a 
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning 
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).  
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, 
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and 
          "below" labels mixed up.] 
    
               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of 
          light! 
    
               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION 
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these 
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a 
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to 
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge 
          is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular 
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the 
          rotation of the particle.) 
      
               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to 
          confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is 
          generated in clouds. 



          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has 
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in 
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". 
    
               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, 
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call 
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as 
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to 
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. 
    
               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many 
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such 
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. 
    
               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY 
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, 
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles 
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses 
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and 
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a 
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. 
    
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED. 


                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
          


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61245
From: vandenbe@crayxmp.lmsc.lockheed.com (J.A. Vanden Beukel)
Subject: Re: Drag Free Satellites

Regarding drag free satellites, Joe Cain gives a good description of the concept.  It is however more than a concept.  The Navy's Triad satellite succesfully used drag free control.  Drag free control is an integral part of the Stanford Gravity Probe-B spacecraft, due to fly in 1999.  It is also part of the European STEP satellite.

Jeff V.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61246
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <1rh4rqINNi7o@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know 
>>>of a private Titan pad? 
>>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
>>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
>>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
>>would have far better cost-effectiveness.
>
>Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest
>wins. 

Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the
prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can
spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.

What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
the prize is just the icing on the cake.

I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough
return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current
US launchers.  (There would surely be a buy-American clause in the rules
for such a prize, since it would pretty well have to be government-funded.)
You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch
system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is
of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.

>... could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I
>wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...

I'm sure Spar would offer to develop such a lunar-tuned system and deliver
a couple of them to you for only a couple of hundred million dollars.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61247
From: robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......

David Fuzzy Wells (wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

: I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
: really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
: Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.  

: <BOOM!>  Whooooooooshhhhhh......  <sputter, sputter>

: <okay, PRETEND it would make a sound!>
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just a thought... (let's pretend it IS INFLATED and PRESSURIZED) wouldn't
there be a large static electricity build up around the puncture?
If the metalization is behind a clear sandwich (ie. insulated) then the 
deflating balloon would generate electrical interference - "noise"

By the way, any serious high velocity impact would simply cut a "Bugs
Bunny" hole through the wall, highly unlikely to "BOOM", and the fabric
would almost certainly be ripstop.


Regards,  Robin Kenny - a private and personal opinion, not in any way
                        endorsed, authorised or known by my employers.
 ______________________________________________________________________
   What the heck would I know about Space? I'm stuck at the 
   bottom of this huge gravity well!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61248
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Moonbase race

George William Herbert sez:

>Hmm.  $1 billion, lesse... I can probably launch 100 tons to LEO at
>$200 million, in five years, which gives about 20 tons to the lunar
>surface one-way.  Say five tons of that is a return vehicle and its
>fuel, a bigger Mercury or something (might get that as low as two
>tons), leaving fifteen tons for a one-man habitat and a year's supplies?
>Gee, with that sort of mass margins I can build the systems off
>the shelf for about another hundred million tops.  That leaves
>about $700 million profit.  I like this idea 8-)  Let's see
>if you guys can push someone to make it happen 8-) 8-)

I like your optimism, George.  I don't know doots about raising that kind
of dough, but if you need people to split the work and the $700M, you just
give me a ring :-)  Living alone for a year on the moon sounds horrid, but
I'd even try that, if I got a bigger cut.  :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61249
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: NASA Ames server (was Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4)

In article <1993Apr26.152722.19887@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes:
> I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
[...]
> Sorry it took
> me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
> but it's out of space.

How ironic.

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

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61250
From: tholen@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

Alan Carter writes:

>> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

> This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
> someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?

The name is rather descriptive.  It's a command to the spacecraft that tells
it "If you don't hear from Earth after 264 hours, assume something is wrong
with your (the spacecraft) attitude, and go into a preprogrammed search mode
in an attempt to reacquire the signal from Earth."

The spacecraft and Earth are not in constant communication with each other.
Earth monitors the telemetry from the spacecraft, and if everything is fine,
there's no reason to send it any new information.  But from the spacecraft's
point of view, no information from Earth could mean either everything is
fine, or that the spacecraft has lost signal acquisition.  Just how long
should the spacecraft wait before it decides that something is wrong and
begins to take corrective action?  That "how long" is the command loss timer.
During relatively inactive cruise phases, the command loss timer can be set
to rather long values.  In this case, Earth is telling Galileo "expect to
hear back from us sometime within the next 264 hours".

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61251
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?

The variance from perfect sphericity in a model of the earth small enough
to fit into your home would probably be imperceptible.

Any globe you can buy will be close enough.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61252
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the
event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.

Just some idle babbling,
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61253
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - April 1993

                          THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF
                  THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                       Volume 4, Number 9 - April 1993

                         ###########################

                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

                         ###########################

          * ASA Membership and Article Submission Information

          * The Soviets and Venus, Part 3 - Larry Klaes

                         ###########################

                         ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

        The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
    (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the
    Atlantic, Incorporated.  The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated
    to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space
    exploration, as well as the social and educational needs of its members.

        ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in
    astronomy and space exploration.  Members receive the Journal of the
    ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail - Not a duplicate of this
    Electronic Journal) and the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine.
    Members may also purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY and
    SKY & TELESCOPE magazines.

        For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any
    of the following addresses:

        Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA)
        c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA)
        Georgia State University (GSU)
        Atlanta, Georgia  30303
        U.S.A.

        asa@chara.gsu.edu

        ASA BBS: (404) 321-5904, 300/1200/2400 Baud

        or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your
    address and/or receive the latest Society news.

        ASA Officers and Council -

        President - Eric Greene
        Vice President - Jeff Elledge
        Secretary - Ingrid Siegert-Tanghe
        Treasurer - Mike Burkhead
        Directors - Becky Long, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers
        Council - Bill Bagnuolo, Michele Bagnuolo, Don Barry, Bill Black, 
                  Mike Burkhead, Jeff Elledge, Frank Guyton, Larry Klaes, 
                  Ken Poshedly, Jim Rouse, Tano Scigliano, John Stauter, 
                  Wess Stuckey, Harry Taylor, Gary Thompson, Cindy Weaver, 
                  Bob Vickers


                             ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS

        Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration
    are most welcome.  Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to
    Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above
    Society addresses:

        klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
        or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
        or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
        or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

        You may also use the above addresses for EJASA back issue requests,
    letters to the editor, and ASA membership information.

        When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include
    either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a
    telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch.

        Back issues of the EJASA are also available from the ASA anonymous 
    FTP site at chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29).  Directory: /pub/ejasa

                                DISCLAIMER

        Submissions are welcome for consideration.  Articles submitted,
    unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated.  Though the articles will not
    be used for profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other
    changes.  Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is
    encouraged, provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s).
    Opinions expressed in the EJASA are those of the authors' and not
    necessarily those of the ASA.  This Journal is Copyright (c) 1993
    by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated.


                             THE SOVIETS AND VENUS
                                     PART 3

                       Copyright (c) 1993 by Larry Klaes

	The author gives permission to any group or individual wishing
	to distribute this article, so long as proper credit is given,
        the author is notified, and the article is reproduced in its 
        entirety.

        To the North Pole!

        On June 2 and 7, 1983, two of the Soviet Union's mighty PROTON 
    rockets lifted off from the Tyuratam Space Center in the Kazakhstan 
    Republic.  Aboard those boosters were a new breed of VENERA probe 
    for the planet Venus. 

        Designated VENERA 15 and 16, the probes were meant not for landing
    yet more spherical craft on the Venerean surface but to radar map the
    planet in detail from orbit.  To accomplish this task, the basic
    VENERA design was modified in numerous areas.  The central bus core
    was made one meter (39.37 inches) longer to carry the two tons of
    propellant required for braking into orbit, double the fuel carried by
    the VENERA 9 and 10 orbiters eight years earlier.  Extra solar panels
    were added on to give the vehicles more power for handling the large
    amounts of data which would be created by the radar imaging.  The
    dish-shaped communications antennae were also made one meter larger 
    to properly transmit this information to Earth. 

        Atop the buses, where landers were usually placed, were installed
    the 1.4 by 6-meter (4.62 by 19.8-foot), 300-kilogram (660-pound)
    POLYUS V side-looking radar antennae.  The radar system, possibly a
    terrain-imaging version of the nuclear-powered satellites used by 
    the Soviets for Earth ocean surveillance, would be able to map Venus'
    surface at a resolution of one to two kilometers (0.62 to 1.2 miles). 

        The Soviet probes' imaging parameters were a vast improvement over
    the United States PIONEER VENUS Orbiter, which could reveal objects 
    no smaller than 75 kilometers (45 miles) in diameter.  And while the
    VENERAs' resolution was comparable to that of similar observations 
    made by the 300-meter (1,000-foot) Arecibo radio telescope on the 
    island of Puerto Rico, the orbiters would be examining the northern
    pole of Venus.  This region was unobtainable by either Arecibo or 
    PIONEER VENUS and appeared to contain a number of potentially 
    interesting geological features worthy of investigation.

        On October 10, 1983, after an interplanetary journey of 330 
    million kilometers (198 million miles) and two mid-course corrections, 
    VENERA 15 fired its braking rockets over Venus to place itself in a 
    polar orbit 1,000 by 65,000 kilometers (600 by 39,000 miles) around 
    the planet, completing one revolution every twenty-four hours.  VENERA 
    16 followed suit four days later.  The twin probes thus became Venus' 
    first polar-circling spacecraft.

        Radar operations began on October 16 for VENERA 15 and October 20 
    for VENERA 16.  For up to sixteen minutes every orbit over the north
    pole, the probes would make a radar sweep of the surface 150 kilometers 
    (ninety miles) wide and nine thousand kilometers (5,400 miles) long.  
    The craft would then head out to the highest part of their orbits over 
    the south pole to recharge their batteries and transmit the data back 
    to two large Soviet antennae on Earth.  Each strip of information took 
    eight hours to process by computer.  By the end of their main missions 
    in July of 1984, the VENERAs had mapped 115 million square kilometers 
    (46 million square miles), thirty percent of the entire planet.

        VENERA 15 and 16 revealed that Venus has a surface geology more
    complex than shown by PIONEER VENUS in the late 1970s.  Numerous hills, 
    mountains, ridges, valleys, and plains spread across the landscape, 
    many of them apparently formed by lava from erupting volcanoes in the 
    last one billion years.  In planetary terms this makes the Venerean 
    surface rather young.  Hundreds of craters were detected as well, the 
    largest of which had to have been created by meteorites (planetoids 
    would be a better term here) at least fourteen kilometers (8.4 miles) 
    across, due to Venus' very dense atmosphere.

        There were some disagreements between U.S. and Soviet scientists
    on the origins of certain surface features.  For example, the probes' 
    owners declared that the 96-kilometer (57.6-mile) wide crater at the 
    summit of 10,800-meter (35,640-foot) high Maxwell Montes, the tallest 
    mountain on the planet, was the result of a meteorite impact.  American 
    scientists, on the other hand, felt the crater was proof that Maxwell 
    was a huge volcano sitting on the northern "continent" of Ishtar Terra.  

        In any event, the U.S. decided to wait on making verdicts about
    Venus until the arrival of their own radar probe, scheduled for later
    in the decade.  Originally named the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar
    (VOIR), its initial design was scaled back and the craft was redesig-
    nated the Venus Radar Mapper (VRM).  Eventually the machine would be 
    called MAGELLAN, after the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan 
    (circa 1480-1521).  This vehicle would map the entire planet in even 
    finer detail than the VENERAs.  For the time, however, the Soviet 
    probes maintained that distinction.

        Radar imaging was not the only ability of the VENERAs.  Bolted
    next to the POLYUS V radar antenna were the Omega altimeter and the 
    Fourier infrared spectrometer, the latter for measuring the world's
    temperatures.  The majority of the areas covered registered about
    five hundred degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit), but a few
    locations were two hundred degrees hotter, possibly indicating 
    current volcanic activity.  The probes also found that the clouds 
    over the poles were five to eight kilometers (three to 4.8 miles) 
    lower than at the equator.  In contrast, the polar air above sixty 
    kilometers (thirty-six miles) altitude was five to twenty degrees 
    warmer than the equatorial atmosphere at similar heights.

        When the main mapping mission ended in July of 1984, there were 
    plans for at least one of the VENERAs to radar image the surface at 
    more southernly latitudes.  Unfortunately this idea did not come to 
    pass, as the orbiters may not have possessed enough attitude-control
    gas to perform the operation.  

        VENERA 15 and 16 ceased transmission in March of 1985, leaving 
    the Soviet Institute of Radiotechnology and Electronics with six 
    hundred kilometers (360 miles) of radar data tape to sort into an 
    atlas of twenty-seven maps of the northern hemisphere of Venus.

        Venus by Balloon

        For years the thick atmosphere of Venus had been a tempting 
    target to scientists who wished to explore the planet's mantle of 
    air with balloon-borne instruments.  Professor Jacques Blamont of 
    the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
    had proposed such an idea as far back as 1967, only to have a joint 
    French-Soviet balloon mission canceled in 1982.  Nevertheless, 
    late in the year 1984, such dreams would eventually come true.

        When two PROTON rockets were sent skyward on December 15 and 21, 
    the Soviet Union provided Western observers with the first clear, full 
    views of the booster which had been launching every Soviet Venus probe 
    since 1975.  This was but one of many firsts for the complex mission.

        The unmanned probes launched into space that December were named
    VEGA 1 and 2, a contraction of the words VENERA and GALLEI - Gallei
    being the Russian word for Halley.  Not only did the spacecraft 
    have more than one mission to perform, they also had more than one 
    celestial objective to explore, namely the comet Halley.  

        This famous periodic traveler was making its latest return to 
    the inner regions of the solar system since its last visit in 1910.
    Since it was widely believed that comets are the icy remains from
    the formation of the solar system five billion years ago, scientists 
    around the world gave high priority to exploring one of the few such 
    bodies which actually come close to Earth.  

        Most comets linger in the cold and dark outer fringes of the solar 
    system.  Some, like Halley, are perturbed by various forces and fall 
    in towards the Sun, where they circle for millennia spewing out ice 
    and debris for millions of kilometers from the warmth of each solar 
    encounter.

        The Soviet Union, along with the European Space Agency (ESA) and
    Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), did not
    wish to miss out on this first opportunity in human history to make a
    close examination of Halley.  The ESA would be using the cylindrical
    GIOTTO probe to make a dangerously close photographic flyby of the 
    comet, while Japan's first deep space craft - SAKIGAKE (Pioneer) and 
    SUISEI (Comet) - would view Halley from a much safer distance. 

        Scientists in the United States also desired to study the comet
    from the vantage of a space probe, at one time envisioning a vessel
    powered by solar sails or ion engines.  However, government budget
    cuts to NASA canceled the American efforts.  The U.S. would have to
    make do primarily with Earth-based observations and the sharing of 
    data from other nations, though an instrument named the Dust Counter 
    and Mass Analyzer (DUCMA), designed by Chicago University Professor 
    John Simpson, was added on the Soviet mission in May of 1984.

        The Soviets' answer to Halley were the VEGAs.  Instead of building
    an entirely new craft for the mission, the Soviets decided to modify
    their VENERA bus design to encounter the comet while performing an 
    advanced Venus mission along the way.  As VEGA 1 and 2 reached Venus,
    the buses would drop off one lander/balloon each and use the mass of 
    the shrouded planet to swing them towards comet Halley, much as the 
    U.S. probe MARINER 10 used Venus to flyby Mercury eleven years earlier. 
    The Soviet craft would then head on to Halley, helping to pinpoint the 
    location of the comet's erupting nucleus for the GIOTTO probe to dive 
    in only 605 kilometers (363 miles) away in March of 1986.

        As planned, the two VEGAs arrived at Venus in June of 1985.  VEGA
    1 released its payload first on the ninth day of the month, the lander
    making a two-day descent towards the planet.  The craft touched the
    upper atmosphere on the morning of June 11.  Sixty-one kilometers
    (36.6 miles) above the Venerean surface a small container was released
    by the lander, which produced a parachute at 55 kilometers (33 miles)
    altitude.  Thus the first balloon probe ever to explore Venus had
    successfully arrived. 

        One kilometer after the opening of the parachute, helium gas was
    pumped into the Teflon-coated plastic balloon, inflating it to a
    diameter of 3.54 meters (11.68 feet).  Dangling on a tether thirteen
    meters (42.9 feet) below was the instrument package, properly known as
    an aerostat.  The top part of the 6.9-kilogram (15.18-pound) aerostat
    consisted of a cone which served as an antenna and tether attachment
    point to the balloon.  Beneath it was the transmitter, electronics,
    and instruments.  Connected at the bottom was a nephelometer for
    measuring cloud particles.  The aerostat was painted with a special
    white finish to keep at bay the corroding mist of sulfuric acid which
    permeated the planet's atmosphere. 

        The VEGA 1 balloon was dropped into the night side of Venus just
    north of the equator.  Scientists were concerned that the gas bag 
    would burst in the heat of daylight, so they placed it in the darkened 
    hemisphere to give the craft as much time as possible to return data.  
    This action necessitated that the landers come down in the dark as 
    well, effectively removing the camera systems used on previous missions.  
    The author wonders, though, if they could have used floodlights similar 
    to the ones attached to VENERA 9 and 10 in 1975, when Soviet scientists 
    had thought the planet's surface was enshrouded in a perpetual twilight 
    due to the permanently thick cloud cover.

        The first balloon transmitted for 46.5 hours right into the day
    hemisphere before its lithium batteries failed, covering 11,600
    kilometers (6,960 miles).  The threat of bursting in the day heat did
    not materialize.  The VEGA 1 balloon was stationed at a 54-kilometer
    (32.4-mile) altitude after dropping ballast at fifty kilometers
    (thirty miles), for this was considered the most active of the three
    main cloud layers reported by PIONEER VENUS in 1978.  Indeed the
    balloon was pushed across the planet at speeds up to 250 kilometers
    (150 miles) per hour.  Strong vertical winds bobbed the craft up and
    down two to three hundred meters (660 to 990 feet) through most of the
    journey.  The layer's air temperature averaged forty degrees Celsius
    (104 degrees Fahrenheit) and pressure was a mere 0.5 Earth atmosphere.
    The nephelometer could find no clear regions in the surrounding clouds. 

        Early in the first balloon's flight, the VEGA 1 lander was already
    headed towards the Venerean surface.  Both landers were equipped with
    a soil drill and analyzer similar to the ones carried on VENERA 13 
    and 14 in 1982.  However, VEGA 1 would become unable to report the
    composition of the ground at its landing site in Rusalka Planitia, the
    Mermaid Plain north of Aphrodite Terra.  While still ten to fifteen
    minutes away from landing, a timer malfunction caused the drill to 
    accidentally begin its programmed activity sixteen kilometers (9.6 
    miles) above the surface. 

        There was neither any way to shut off the instrument before
    touchdown nor reactivate it after landing.  This was unfortunate not
    only for the general loss of data but also for the fact that most of
    Venus was covered with such smooth low-level lava plains and had never 
    before been directly examined.  Nevertheless, the surface temperature 
    and pressure was calculated at 468 degrees Celsius (874.4 degrees 
    Fahrenheit) and 95 Earth atmospheres respectively during the lander's 
    56 minutes of ground transmissions.  A large amount of background 
    infrared radiation was also recorded at the site.

        As had been done when the drills and cameras on VENERA 11 and 
    12 had failed in December of 1978, the Soviets focused on the data
    returned during the lander's plunge through the atmosphere.  The
    French-Soviet Malachite mass spectrometer detected sulfur, chlorine, 
    and possibly phosphorus.  It is the sulfur - possibly from active 
    volcanoes - which gives the Venerean clouds their yellowish color.
    The Sigma 3 gas chromatograph found that every cubic meter of air
    between an altitude of 48 and 63 kilometers (28.8 and 37.8 miles)
    contained one milligram (0.015 grain) of sulfuric acid.

        The VEGA 1 data on the overall structure of the cloud decks 
    appeared to be at odds with the information from PIONEER VENUS.
    The case was made even stronger by the fact that VEGA 2's results
    nearly matched its twin.  The VEGAs found only two main cloud layers 
    instead of the three reported by the U.S. probes.  The layers were 
    three to five kilometers (1.8 to 3 miles) thick at altitudes of 50 
    and 58 kilometers (30 and 34.8 miles).  The clouds persisted like a
    thin fog until clearing at an altitude of 35 kilometers (21 miles), 
    much lower than the PV readings.  One possibility for the discrepan-
    cies may have been radical structural changes in the Venerean air 
    over the last seven years.

        When the lander and balloon finally went silent, the last 
    functioning part of the VEGA 1 mission, the flyby bus, sailed on
    for a 708 million-kilometer (424.8 million-mile) journey around
    the Sun to become the first probe to meet comet Halley.  On March
    6, 1986, the bus made a 8,890-kilometer (5,334-mile) pass at the 
    dark and icy visitor before traveling on in interplanetary space.
    The Soviets had accomplished their first mission to two celestial
    bodies with one space vessel.

        On June 13, VEGA 2 released its lander/balloon payload for
    a two-day fall towards Venus.  Like its duplicate, the VEGA 2
    balloon radioed information back to the twenty antennae tracking
    it on Earth for 46.5 hours before battery failure on the morning
    side of the planet.  During its 11,100-kilometer (6,660-mile)
    flight over Venus, the second balloon entered in a rather still
    environment which became less so twenty hours into the mission.
    After 33 hours mission time the air became even more turbulent 
    for a further eight hours.  When the balloon passed over a five-
    kilometer (three-mile) mountain on the "continent" of Aphrodite 
    Terra, a powerful downdraft pulled the craft 2.5 kilometers (1.5 
    miles) towards the surface.

        Temperature sensors on the VEGA 2 balloon reported that the air 
    layer it was moving through was consistently 6.5 degrees Celsius 
    (43.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the area explored by the VEGA 1
    balloon.  This was corroborated by the VEGA 2 lander as it passed 
    through the balloon's level.  No positive indications of lightning
    were made by either balloon, and the second aerostat's nephelometer 
    failed to function.

        The VEGA 2 lander touched down on the northern edge of Aphrodite
    Terra's western arm on the fifteenth of June, 1,500 kilometers (900
    miles) southeast of VEGA 1.  The lander's resting place was smoother
    than thought, indicating either a very ancient and worn surface or a
    relatively young one covered in fresh lava.  The soil drill was in
    working order and reported a rock type known as anorthosite-troctolite, 
    rare on Earth but present in Luna's highlands.  This rock is rich in 
    aluminum and silicon but lacking in iron and magnesium.  A high degree 
    of sulfur was also present in the soil.  The air around VEGA 2 measured 
    463 degrees Celsius (865.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and 91 Earth atmospheres,
    essentially a typical day (or night) on Venus.

        Far above the VEGA 2 lander, its carrier bus sped past Venus at
    a distance of 24,500 kilometers (14,700 miles) and followed its twin 
    to comet Halley, making a closer flyby on March 9, 1986 at just 8,030 
    kilometers (4,818 miles).  Both probes helped to reveal that the comet 
    is a very dark and irregular-shaped mass about fourteen kilometers 
    (8.4 miles) across, rotating once every 53 hours, give or take three 
    hours.

        Since both VEGA craft were still functioning after their Halley
    encounters, Soviet scientists considered an option to send the 
    probes to other celestial objects.  One prime target was the near-
    Earth planetoid 2101 Adonis, which VEGA 2 could pass at a distance 
    of six million kilometers (3.6 million miles).  Sadly, the Soviets 
    had to back out on the opportunity to become the first nation to fly 
    a spacecraft past a planetoid when it was discovered that there was 
    not enough maneuvering fuel in the probe to reach Adonis as planned.  
    VEGA 1 and 2 were quietly shut down in early 1987.

        Future Plans Diverted

        The impressive VEGA mission had given some scientists numerous 
    ideas and hope for even more ambitious expeditions to the second 
    world from the Sun.  One example was the VESTA mission, planned for
    the early 1990s.

        This Soviet-French collaboration called for the launch of multiple 
    probes on a single PROTON rocket in either 1991 or 1992.  The craft 
    would first swing by Venus and drop off several landers and balloon 
    probes.  The aerostats would be designed to survive in the planet's 
    corrosive atmosphere for up to one month, a large improvement over 
    the VEGA balloons' two days.  The mission would then head out to 
    investigate several planetoids and comets, including a possible 
    landing on Vesta (thus the mission name), the most reflective Main 
    Belt planetoid as seen from Earth.

        Unfortunately for Venus exploration, plans began to change in
    the Soviet Union.  In 1986 the Soviets decided to reroute the VESTA
    mission to the red planet Mars instead of Venus, keeping the comet
    and planetoid aspects intact.  By this time in the Soviet space 
    program interest was focusing on Mars.  Already under construction 
    was an entirely new probe design called PHOBOS.  Two members of this 
    class were planned to leave Earth in 1988 and orbit Mars the next 
    year.  PHOBOS 1 and 2 would then place the first instruments on
    Mars' largest moon, Phobos. 

        All this was a prelude to even more advanced Mars expeditions,
    including balloon probes, rovers, soil sample return craft, and 
    eventually human explorers in the early Twenty-First Century.
    The environment of Venus was just too hostile for any serious
    consideration of human colonization in the near future.

        But things began to look bleak for Soviet Venus and Mars
    exploration.  Both PHOBOS probes failed to complete their missions,
    one losing contact on the way to the Red Planet in 1988 and the other
    going silent in Mars orbit just one week before the planned moon
    landing in March of 1989. 

        In 1989 a plan was devised for a Venus orbiter to drop eight to
    ten penetrators around the planet in 1998.  Several years later the
    mission launch date was moved to the year 2005 and has now been put 
    on indefinite hold.  No other official Soviet missions to Venus have
    since been put forth, a sad commentary after twenty-five years of
    continuous robotic exploration of the planet. 

        During the late 1980s a drastic political and economic change
    was taking over the Soviet Union.  President Mikhail Gorbachev began 
    to "open up" his nation to the benefits of increased cooperation with 
    the rest of the nations, particularly those in the West.  While the 
    culture became less oppressive than in the past, the economy was taking 
    a very rough ride as it also underwent the effects of a "free market".

        These effects hit everywhere, including the space program.
    Missions at all levels were cut back.  The Soviets began making
    almost desperate attempts to cooperate with other space-faring
    nations either to keep their remaining programs alive or just to 
    make money.  

        In early 1992 it was reported that the Soviets were offering for 
    sale several fully-equipped VENERAs they had in storage for the price 
    of 1.6 million dollars each, an incredibly low price for any planetary 
    probe.  No nation took them up on the bargain.  Meanwhile the United 
    States was gearing up for new Venus missions of their own.

        MAGELLAN and GALILEO 

        The U.S. reactivated their long-dormant planetary exploration
    with the launch of the Space Shuttle ATLANTIS on May 4, 1989.
    Aboard the Shuttle was the MAGELLAN spacecraft, a combination of
    spare parts from other U.S. probes designed to make the most 
    detailed and complete radar-mapping of Venus in history.  When
    MAGELLAN reached the second world in August of 1990, it would be
    able to map almost the entire planet down to a resolution of 108
    meters (360 feet), surpassing the abilities of VENERA 15 and 16.

        In the interim another American probe was launched from a Space 
    Shuttle which would make a quick flyby of Venus on its way to orbit 
    the giant planet Jupiter in 1995.  On October 18, 1989, the Shuttle 
    ATLANTIS released its second unmanned planetary probe into space, 
    named GALILEO after the famous Italian astronomer who discovered the 
    probe's primary target's major moons in 1610.

        In the absence of a powerful enough booster to send GALILEO on
    a direct flight to the Jovian planet, the probe was sent around
    Venus and Earth several times to build up enough speed to reach
    Jupiter.  As a result, Venus became GALILEO's first planetary
    goal in February of 1990.  The probe radioed back images of the
    planet's swirling clouds and further indications of lightning in
    that violent atmosphere.

        On the Drawing Boards

        With the incredible success of MAGELLAN in the last few years,
    new plans have been laid out for further journeys to Venus.  Scien-
    tists in the U.S. have talked to space scientists in the former Soviet 
    Union - now the Commonwealth of Independent States since January 1, 
    1992 - of a cooperative effort to launch new VENERA lander missions 
    within in the next decade.  Japan, India, and the ESA have also
    considered their own Venus missions in the next few decades.

        In February of 1993 NASA came up with several new Venus projects 
    as part of their Discovery Program for launching inexpensive probes
    throughout the solar system.  For Venus two missions were selected
    for further study:  A Venus Multiprobe Mission involving the landing
    of fourteen small probes over one hemisphere to measure winds, air
    temperature, and pressure; and the Venus Composition Probe, designed
    to study Venus' atmosphere while descending through the thick air
    with the aid of a parachute, much as the Soviets had done since 1967.
    Final project decisions will be made in 1994.

        Humans on Venus      

        Will a human ever be able to stand on the surface of Venus?
    At present the lead-melting temperatures and crushing air pressure
    would be threatening to any Earth life not protected in something
    even tougher than a VENERA lander.  Plans have been looked into
    changing the environment of Venus itself into something more like
    Earth's.  However, it should be noted that any such undertaking
    will require the removal of much of the thick carbon dioxide 
    atmosphere, a major reduction in surface heat, and the ability 
    to speed up the planet's rotation rate to something a bit faster
    than once every 243 Earth days.  Such a project may take centuries
    if not millennia.

        In the meantime efforts should be made to better understand
    Venus as its exists today.  We still have yet to fully know how
    a world so seemingly similar to Earth in many important ways became
    instead such a deadly place.  Will Earth ever suffer this fate?
    Perhaps Venus holds the answers.  Such answers may best be found
    through international cooperation, including the nation which 
    made the first attempts to lift the cloudy veils from Venus.

        Bibliography -

         Barsukov, V. L., Senior Editor, VENUS GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND 
           GEOPHYSICS: RESEARCH RESULTS FROM THE U.S.S.R., University of
           Arizona Press, Tucson, 1992

         Beatty, J. Kelly, and Andrew Chaikin, Editors, THE NEW SOLAR 
           SYSTEM, Cambridge University Press and Sky Publishing Corp.,
           Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990

         Burgess, Eric, VENUS: AN ERRANT TWIN, Columbia University Press, 
           New York, 1985

         Burrows, William E., EXPLORING SPACE: VOYAGES IN THE SOLAR
           SYSTEM AND BEYOND, Random House, Inc., New York, 1990

         Chaisson, Eric, and Steve McMillan, ASTRONOMY TODAY, Prentice-
           Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1993

         Gatland, Kenneth, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 
           Salamander Books, New York, 1989

         Greeley, Ronald, PLANETARY LANDSCAPES, Allen and Unwin, Inc.,
           Winchester, Massachusetts, 1987

         Hart, Douglas, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, Exeter 
           Books, New York, 1987

         Hartmann, William K., MOONS AND PLANETS (Third Edition), Wadsworth
           Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1993

         Harvey, Brian, RACE INTO SPACE: THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMME, 
           Ellis Howood Limited, Chichester, England, 1988

         Henbest, Nigel, THE PLANETS: PORTRAITS OF NEW WORLDS, Viking
           Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1992

         Johnson, Nicholas L., SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS 1980-1985, Volume
           66 Science and Technology Series, American Astronautical 
           Society, Univelt, Inc., San Diego, California, 1987

         Johnson, Nicholas L., THE SOVIET YEAR IN SPACE 1989/1990, 
           Teledyne Brown Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
           1990/1991

         Lang, Kenneth R., and Charles A. Whitney, WANDERERS IN SPACE:
           EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, Cambridge 
           University Press, New York, 1991

         MAGELLAN: THE UNVEILING OF VENUS, JPL 400-345, March 1989

         Murray, Bruce, Michael C. Malin, and Ronald Greeley, EARTHLIKE
           PLANETS: SURFACES OF MERCURY, VENUS, EARTH, MOON, MARS, W. H.
           Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, 1981

         Murray, Bruce, JOURNEY INTO SPACE: THE FIRST THREE DECADES OF
           SPACE EXPLORATION, W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1989

         Newcott, William, "Venus Revealed", NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, 
           Volume 183, Number 2, Washington, D.C., February 1993

         Nicks, Oran W., FAR TRAVELERS: THE EXPLORING MACHINES, NASA 
           SP-480, Washington, D.C., 1985

         Oberg, James Edward, NEW EARTHS: RESTRUCTURING EARTH AND OTHER
           PLANETS, A Meridian Book, New American Library, Inc., New
           York, 1983

         Robertson, Donald F., "Venus - A Prime Soviet Objective" (Parts 
           1/2), SPACEFLIGHT, Volume 34, Numbers 5/6, British Interplanetary
           Society (BIS), London, England, May/June 1992

         Smith, Arthur, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED
           SPACE PROBES, Patrick Stephens, Ltd., Wellingborough, Northamp-
           tonshire, England, 1988

         VOYAGE THROUGH THE UNIVERSE: THE NEAR PLANETS, By the Editors
           of Time-Life Books, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, 1990

         Wilson, Andrew, JANE'S SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, Jane's Publishing, Inc.,
           New York, 1987

        About the Author -

        Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, is the recipient of the ASA's 1990 
    Meritorious Service Award for his work as Editor of the EJASA since 
    its founding in August of 1989.  Larry also teaches a course on
    Basic Astronomy at the Concord-Carlisle Adult and Community 
    Education Program in Massachusetts.

        Larry is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer" - August 1989
        "Stopping Space and Light Pollution" - September 1989              
        "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" - October 1989
        "Astronomy and the Family" - May 1991  
        "The Soviets and Venus, Part 1" - February 1993
        "The Soviets and Venus, Part 2" - March 1993


      THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                          April 1993 - Vol. 4, No. 9

                           Copyright (c) 1993 - ASA


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61254
From: jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
a "NO-OP" command.

Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
nothing to do with jet propulsion.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@bnr.ca                        |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
BNR Ltd.     |  bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars5!jcobban         |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61255
From: seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

>Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> ... humans (and this was published
>> in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
>> long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
>> fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
>> course.

lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

Actually, both numbers are correct.  The difference is in the direction
of the acceleration.  For pilots, accelerations tend to be transverse to
the direction you're facing (pulling out from a steep dive, the
acceleration will force blood toward your feet, for instance).  In this
case, you can only put up with about 8 g's even with a pressure suit.  

The record for acceleration, though, is measured along "the direction
you're facing" (for lack of a better term).  As I recall, this record
was set in rocket sleds back in the 60's -- and was about 40 g's or so.

Eric Seale
seale@pogo.den.mmc.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61256
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:

>Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
>  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
>     of man-tended capability) 

>Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) 

>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.

I'll vote for anything where they don't feel constrained to use stupid
and ugly PC phrases to replace words like 'manned'.  If they think
they need to do that, they're more than likely engaging in 'politics
and public relations as usual' rather than seriously wanting to
actually get into space.  So that eliminates Option "A" from the
running.  What do they call a manned station in Option "C"?

[I'm actually about half serious about that.  People should be more
concerned with grammatical correctness and actually getting a working
station than they are with 'Political Correctness' of terminology.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61257
From: fairfiel@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield)
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
(in answer to Amruth Laxman
>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.

>lan

Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that
figure is about right for sustained G, no protection.
The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are
all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented
gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor,
either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled
decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had
to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that
G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting
straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad
it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a
good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G.

A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a
fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures?

Ray Fairfield
fairfiel@zeus.usq.edu.au


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61258
From: vamwendt@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Michael Wendt)
Subject: Historic shuttle flights

        Would someone please send me a list of the historic space flights?  I 
am not looking for a list of all flights, just the ones in which something 
monumental happened.  Or better yet, is there an ftp site with the list of all
shuttle flights?

Thanks (if you helped),
vamwendt@upei.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61259
From: baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr25180118@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>     What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>
>Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution,
>crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.

How can you tell the difference between an intensity distribution which
is due to an "edge" in the spatial distribution and an intensity
distribution which is due an a sharp dropoff of intrinsic luminosities
below a certain threshold?  Could you describe (roughly) what the
intensity distribution is like?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61260
Subject: ROCKET LAUNCH OBSERVED!
From: leo.wikholm@compart.fi (Leo Wikholm)



    A bright light phenomenon was observed in the Eastern Finland
    on April 21. At 00.25 UT two people saw a bright, luminous
    pillar-shaped phenomenon in the low eastern horizont near
    Mikkeli. The head of the pillar was circular. The lower part
    was a little winding. It was like a monster they told. They
    were little frightened. Soon the yellowish pillar became
    enlarged. A bright spot like the Sun was appeared in the middle
    of the phenomenon. At last the light landed behind the nearby
    forest. Now there was only luminous trails in the sky which were
    visible till morning sunrise.

    The same phenomenon was observed also by Jaakko Kokkonen in
    Lappeenranta. At 00.26 UT he saw a luminous yellowish trail in
    the low northeastern horizont. The altitude of the trail was
    only about 3-4 degrees. Soon the trail began to grow taller.
    A loop was appeared in the head of the trail. It was like a
    spoon. This lasted only 10 seconds. Now the altitude was about
    five degress above horizont. He noted a bright spot at the
    upper stage of loop. The spot was at magnitude -2. The loop
    became enlarged and the spot was now visible in the middle of
    the loop. A cartwheel-shaped trail was appeared round the bright
    spot. After a minute the spot disappeared and only fuzzy trails
    were only visible in the low horizont. Luminous trails were still
    visible at 01.45 UT in the morning sky.

    The phenomenon was caused by a Russian rocket. I don't know if
    there were satellite launches in Plesetsk Cosmodrome near
    Arkhangelsk, but this may be a rocket experiment too. Since 1969
    we have observed over 80 rocket phenomena in Finland. Most of
    these are rocket experiments (military missile tests?), barium
    experiments and other chemical releases. During these years we
    have observed 17 satellite launches.

    Leo Wikholm

 =====================================================================
 Ursa Astronomical Association        I phone : +358-0-174048
 Satellite and Rocket Phenomena Sect. I fax   : +358-0-657728
 Laivanvarustajankatu 9 C 54          I bbs   : +358-0-174341
 FIN-00140 Helsinki                   I inter : leo.wikholm@compart.fi
 Finland                              I
 =====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61261
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Solid state vs. tube/analog

 Davis Nicoll sez;
>>      Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.

I'd buy that for two reasons.  The tubes for TV's and radios (if you can
still find them) are usually 3x or more expensive than comparable transistors.

Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)

Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61262
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!) writes:
>> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
> 
>> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
>> looked into possible problems with the detectors?
> 
>> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
>> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
>> things?
> 
>> Graydon
> 
> That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses
> and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be-
> fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the
> only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot
> locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With
> two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector
> to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors,
> one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these
> locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the 
> sky), voila, you have an error box.
> 
> BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
> but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
> to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
> pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.
> 
> You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe
> (in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen
> in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be
> a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss
> neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.
> 
> Peter
> peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu
> 

        All of this is VERY valid and very true.  But to add to this
explaniation, each individual detector also has a built in fail-safe, just so
the detector does not read the background radiation(i.e. cosmic rays), 
if I remember right, the detectors go off about 3 to 5 sigma above the 
background.  This is so they don't catch particularly energetic cosmic rays
that would normally set it off. Even with this buffer, they still have to throw
out something like 1/2 of the bursts that they DO get, because of the Earth's
Van Allen Belts, the South Atlantic Anomaly, the Sun,  if I remember right,
there is either a radar station, or a radio station in Australia, and there are
a couple other sources as well.  
                                                -jeremy
                                                belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu




Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61263
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

James Nicoll writes:

>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
> one  should be called 'Smiley'.

No, no, no!  The previous one was called "Smiley".  1992 QB1 = Smiley,
and 1993 FW = Karla.

Note that neither name is official.  It seems the discoverers have an
aversion to the designation scheme.

By the way, 1992 QB1 can never be known as "Smiley" officially, because
that moniker has already been assigned to asteroid number 1613.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61264
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???

In article <1993Apr26.184507.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President,
>but this is from last fall:
>
>     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
>        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

Lets hear it for Dan Goldin...now if he can only convince the rest of
our federal government that the space program is a worth while
investment!

I hope that I will live to see the day we walk on Mars, but
we need to address the technical hurdles first!  If there's sufficient
interest, maybe we should consider starting a sci.space group 
devoted to the technical analysis of long-duration human spaceflight.
Most of you regulars know that I'm interested in starting this analysis
as soon as possible.

Ken
khayash@hsc.usc.edu
USC School of Medicine, Class of 1994


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61265
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Kupier Object: Smiley

James Nicholl sez;
>>       If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>>one  should be called 'Smiley'.

Jeff responds;
>Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt
>object discovered last year, is known as Smiley.

>--
>Jeff Foust              [49 days!]      "You're from outer space."
>Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech      "No, I'm from Iowa.  I only work in
>jafoust@cco.caltech.edu                  outer space."
>jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov                  -- from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Jeff.  If you work for JPL, then your
job IS imaging things :-)

(I know, it was a just a typo, but I couldn't resist.  At least, I hope it
was a typo, or my stupid joke is stupider than I intended :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61266
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Billboards in space

   From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
  >> Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]
  >> please try to remember that there are more human activities than
  >> those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the
  >> Priesthood.

F Baube responds;
   Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may
    freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..

  Steinn Sez;
  >The Priesthood has never quite forgiven
  >the merchants (aka Profiting Caste [sic])
  >for their rise to power, has it?

If we are looking for evidence of belessed-by-God-ness, I'd say the ability
to blare lights all over the evening sky is about the best evidence you
could ever hope to get.  No wonder the preistly classes are upset :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61267
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
> 
> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
> rays?
> 
> How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
> distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
> megaparsec^2 is OK.
> 
> 
> --
>     John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
        I had to turn to one of my problem sets that I did in class for this
little problem.  I don't have a calculator, but I DO have the problem set that
we did not too long ago, so I'll use that, and hope it's what you wanted.  
This is a highly simplified problem, with a very simple burst.  Bursts are
usually more complex than this example I will use here.
        Our burst has a peak flux of 5.43E-6 ergs cm^-2 sec^-1 and a duration
of 8.95 seconds.  During the frst second of the burst, and the last 4 seconds,
its flux is half of the peak flux.  It's flux is the peak flux the rest of the
time.  Assume that the background flux is 10E-7 erg cm^-2 sec^-1.
        Then we had to find the integrated luminosity of the burst, for several
different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the
galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a
R=8800Mpc.  
        We integrated the flux over all time to find the fluence, then used the
old standby formula:
                        Luminosity=4(pi)(r^2)Fpeak
        For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty
energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
much energy in one second? 
                                                -jeremy




Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61270
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>....
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
>> 
>>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

>Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not

("like most good ideas,..." please, people!)

>_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't
>remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
>travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon, 

_Five Weeks in a Balloon_. Not a good idea unless you have helium.
Verne's protagonists didn't. They just got increadibly lucky.

And yes, I knew the title of the movie too, just didn't want to start
talking about it. Except to bring up the image of a team of S. African
Bushmen showing up at a launch site with spears and flint knives
to stop the launch (anyone want to bet on their success in doing so?
especially since they could probably stop a shuttle launch by sneezing
too hard within a couple miles of the launch site).
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61271
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they? 

belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

>catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
>distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
>homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
>sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
>Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
>suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
>disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
>interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
>to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
>tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an 
>analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
>the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
>away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
>arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
>and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
>find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.  

Uh, no. These burst detectors are just that, burst detectors.
They have no angular resolution.

Now a network of burst detectors could have angular resolution,
but we do not have a decent set of different networks at the distances
neccesary from each other to determine if they're happening in the oort
cloud or not.

We have one network, and trying to make two networks out of it
degrades what angular resolution we have.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61272
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Update - Back to the Moon bill

          Introducing the Back to the Moon in Congress:
                          The Next Step
                          
        The next key hurdle for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase 
Act is introduction of the Act in Congress. At this point,  many
congresspersons have been approached about the bill. However,
for a successful effort to pass the bill, we need the best
possible congressperson to introduce the bill. Due to his
position as Chair of the House Committee on Space and Science,
Congressman George Brown is the logical choice. He has a long
record of support and interest in space development, and helped
pass the Launch Services Purchase Act and the Space Settlements
Act.                      
        There is a small group of activists in southern California 
who have assisted George Brown in his recent re-election campaigns.
We are mobilizing this group to have them tell Congressman Brown
about the Back to the Moon bill. We are also asking pro-space
constituents to let him know that they care about getting
America back to the Moon.
        Finally, there is a good chance that a nationwide alert 
for space activists to call or write George Brown to have him
introduce the Back to the Moon bill may be staged during late
spring, 1993.
        All this should produce a positive reaction from Brown's
office. As more is known, it will be passed on.
        However, even if we are successful in getting him to support
the bill,  this alone will not ensure passage of the bill. For
any bill to become law, one of three conditions must exist:
either the bill must reflect widespread national support for an
issue (such as extension of unemployment insurance benefits); be
propelled by high-priced lobbyists (we're out of luck there); or
have widespread support within Congress, due to small, but
widespread, constituent support. The latter is the path that we,
by necessity, must choose.                    
        This means that the introduction of the Lunar Resources 
Data Purchase Act must be immediately accompanied by a large number
of congresspersons' sponsorship of the bill.  To accomplish
this, we need activists to ask their congressperson to support
the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act - now. To wait until the
bill is introduced is simply too late - it takes time to have a
congressperson's staff review a bill.
        If your congressperson mentions that the bill is not yet
introduced, please elicit their opinion of the bill as currently
written. We appreciate all comments on the bill from activists
and politicians.
        If you have yet to see the Back to the Moon bill, please
request a copy by Email (please include your U.S. postal service
address), or contact your local chapter of the National Space
Society).

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61273
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Surviving Large Accelerations?

In article <fairfiel.735866229@helios>, fairfiel@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield) writes:
> lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes:
> (in answer to Amruth Laxman
>>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are
>>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human
>>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.
> 
>>lan
> 
> Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that
> figure is about right for sustained G, no protection.
> The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are
> all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented
> gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor,
> either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled
> decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had
> to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that
> G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting
> straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad
> it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a
> good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G.
> 
> A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a
> fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures?
> 
> Ray Fairfield
> fairfiel@zeus.usq.edu.au
> 


Yes a flotation tank, combined with floride breathing water(REF: the Abyss
breathing solution I think).. also the right position of the astronaut and
strapping you can probably get much more than 45gs in an accesloration..
More like near 100g (or somewhat less)..

Saw I book called the "Time Master" (I thjink that was the title) that had some
ideas on how fast and all you could go..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61274
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

I know that alot of how people think and act in a long distance space project
would be much like old tiem explorers, sailors, hunters and such who spent alot
of time alone, isolated, and alone or in minimal surroundings and sopcial
contacts.. Such as the old arctic and antarctic expeditions and such..

I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
such..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61275
From: scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:

>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
>Thanks in advance.

Even if they did, a globe at a scale that you could fit into your average room
or even average "hall" the deviations you mention would not be visually
evident. In other words a micrometer would be required to test the fact that 
the Globe was infact pear-shaped.  

Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [scott@psy.uwa.oz.au]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).                
                                                             _--_|\       N
Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E
University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S
Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v       

    *** ERROR 144 - REBOOT? is a registered trademark of ENSONIQ Corp ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61276
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

Wm Hathaway comments;
>I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
>practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for
>research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I
>would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may
>never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred -
>unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars
>as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and
>a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time
>- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man.
>Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.
>Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there
>and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief
>in an afterlife.

>The Space Age changed all that.  [more on man's effect on the environment]

>But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't
>fouled in some way.
>.... I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid,
>even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved.

I agree that the desire for beauty is valid, but I think your desire to
impose your vision of beauty is not.  You mention the age-old desire to
somehow get up there, but ignore the beauty of the actual achievment
of that vision.  You mention the beauty of a very dark sky, not impeded
by the effects of humans, but ignore the beauty of the as-dark-as-can-be
sky that is only visible from space, a vision that we, or at least,
our descendents, may one day be able to see, in part, because of efforts
that others call ugly.  One day, I hope, humans will be able to look out,
not upon half the heavens, with only nature-creted lights, but upon all
of the heavens, with no lights.  If advertising in space can help us reach
that goal, it is no less beautiful for the way we reach it, than the
'pristine' sky of yesteryear (or yester-century), which is totally
unreachable.  One of the original conceptions of beauty in wetsern
sculpture was a human form, in the effort of striving to reach a goal.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that modernity has changed that,
just because it has changed the way we strive.

BTW, there are places that people haven't fouled.  Sometimes they make
it better.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61277
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>James Nicoll writes:

>>	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next
>> one  should be called 'Smiley'.

>No, no, no!  The previous one was called "Smiley".  1992 QB1 = Smiley,
>and 1993 FW = Karla.

>By the way, 1992 QB1 can never be known as "Smiley" officially, because
>that moniker has already been assigned to asteroid number 1613.

Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a 
perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure that
I don't know what that reason is.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61278
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
  Sorry, you have a _wish_ for an uncluttered night sky, but it
isn't a right. When you get down to it, you actually have no rights
that the majority haven't agreed to give you (and them in the process).
It's a common misconception that being born somehow endows you with
rights to this that and the other. Sadly this is not true.
  Now if you want to talk about the responsibility that _should_ go with
the power to clutter the night sky, then that's a different matter.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61279
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Subject: France spied on by the U.S.

A young French skeptic, who reads (skeptically) the UFO review OVNI
Presence (O.P.), sent me the following excerpt from an August 92
issue of this review (R.G. = Robert Galley, French minister of
defense in 1974, answering about the Belgian UFO wave):

"O.P. : Can you conceive that the U.S. could allow themselves to send
 their most modern crafts over foreign territory, with the Belgian
 hierarchy ignoring that ?"
"R.G. : Absolutely ! The best proof which I can give is that, some time
 ago, without informing the French authorities, the U.S. based in
 Germany sent a plane to make photos of Pierrelatte (*). We followed
 this plane, and, after its landing on the Ramstein airport, Colonel X
 got back the shots of Pierrelatte. The U.S. had not informed us..."
(*) There is an important military plant of enrichment of uranium at
Pierrelatte (Drome).

What kind of plane could it be ? Surely not an SR-71, which our planes
could not follow (and still can't)...

J. Pharabod

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61280
From: 71160.2356@CompuServe.COM (Larry Krumenaker)
Subject: Ranking of SPACE mailing list

About three weeks ago on the SPACE list, someone was quoting a source on the
relative traffic and rankings of this listserv.  A figure of 88th in
traffic(?) was given.  Unfortunately I did not clip the message and I would
like to know the source of the rankings list.  If anybody still has that
discussion on their disk or knows the source (or is the poster himself!)
I'd appreciate getting that reference.  Being on the road I have temporarily
unsubscribed to the list to cut down mail box stuffing <g> so please reply
via e-mail to lek@aip.org OR 71160.2356@compuserve.com or I won't get your
answer!

Larry Krumenaker
Odyssey Magazine


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61281
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
here?

Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
horrendous expense?

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61282
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: McElwaine's secret messages

Robert MacElwaine sez (again!);

>                     LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
> etc.

OK, I got it.  Actually, these message of MacElwaine's are coded messages.
Read only the caps, and it all comes clear!:

>               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
>          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
>          this WASTED money?!

>               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
>         location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
>         kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
>         cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
>         with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
>         the "Supercollider"?!
>
>              Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
>         proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
>         named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.

Maybe it's a message telling us what actually happened to the legendary
Larson.  Perhaps it's a warning that one should not expend too much
effort trying to counter MacElwaine's postings.  Who can be sure? :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61283
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

   [re: voyages of discovery...]
   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

If you believe 1492 (the film), Columbus had substantial private
funds.  When Columbus asked the merchant why he put the money in, the
guy said (slightly paraphrased) , "There is Faith, Hope and Charity.
But greater than these is Banking."
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61284
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:

   ...  So how about this?  Give the winning group
   (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
   moratorium on taxes.

You are talking about the bozos who can't even manage in November to
keep promises about taxes made in October, and you expect them to make
(and keep!) a 50-year promise like that?  Your faith in the political
system is much higher than mine.  I wouldn't even begin to expect that
in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
do.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61285
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In <1993Apr27.072512.439@bby.com.au> Gregory N. Bond writes:
>I wouldn't even begin to expect that
>in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
>do.
 Wanna bet ??? You must be too young to remember Bob Askin :-)
Read the Costigan commision report if you want to know about corruption
in OZ.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61286
From: jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons)
Subject: What planets are habitable

I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
simply disallow earth like conditions.

eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.

Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
three factors and how they relate to one another.

Jonathan
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With fearsome eyes and fiery breath the dragon burnt the girl to death
                    -- from "Too Late Saint George"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61287
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

>>>>> On 26 Apr 1993 15:37:32 GMT, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) said:

jfc> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
jfc> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
jfc> rays?

and later...
>>>>> Jim Batka ( JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU ) said

JB> So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
JB> some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
JB> could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
JB> events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
JB> be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
JB> being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.


 0.

 Well, maybe not zero, but very little.  At the typical energies for 
 gamma rays, the Galaxy is effectively transparent. 

 Hans Bloemen had a review article in Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. a few 
 years back in which he discusses this in more depth.
--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61288
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.


In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> 
> >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
> 
> >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
> 
> >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   
> 
. . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
part of the Oort cloud.

Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
isn't a mechanism for the others either.

Keith Harwood.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61289
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>
>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>
   Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
"Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.

   It answered the questions you ask (speculatively, of course), along
with many more that need to be considered in habitability studies:
length of day (for day/night temperature variation, and agricultural
concerns), partial pressures of certain unexpected gasses (ever hear of
xenon narcosis?  neither did I), density of particulates in the atm, and
their composition (ever hear of silicosis?  not much fun), etc.

   Climate isn't a global phenomenon and probably needn't concern you,
but axial tilt ought to.  It plays a large part in determining the
severity of seasonal differences, and a lesser but still significant
part in determining the speed of prevailing winds.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61292
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
>Subject: Re: What planets are habitable
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:38:28 GMT
>In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>>
>>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance

There are people who have adapted to high altitudes in the Andes and in
Tibet. I suspect that it took them several generations to make the
adaptation because Europeans had difficulty making the adaptation. They
had to send the women to a lower altitude when they were pregnant in order
to insure sucessful childbirth.

>>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>>

Another factor you should consider is the X-ray opacity of the atmosphere 
in case of stellar flares, the uv opacity is also important because uv 
radiation can kill or damage microbes, plants, and animals. 

>>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>>

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61293
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Report on redesign team

The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....

Redesign Activities Update -- Following is the weekly status on redesign,
based on information provided by NASA headquarters.

The station Redesign Team (SRT) provided a detailed status report to the
Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 22.  The
day-long meeting was held in ANSER facilities in Crystal City, VA; topics
covered by the SRT included a preliminary mission and goals statement for
the space station; science, technology and engineering research; the
assessment process; and the design approach. Discussions on management
options and operations concepts also were held.

The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:

 Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
said the team is working to define a station that meets cost goals and has
identified three distinct phases of evolution - power station, human tended
and permanent presence. The team will define the minimum capability needed
to achieve each phase, the total cost of each phase and the achievable
capability for budget levels. The A option uses current or simplified
Freedom hardware where cost effective and is considering other existing
systems such as the so-called "Bus-1 spacecraft," the orbiter and Spacelab.

The Power Station Capability could be achieved in 3 flights with Freedom
photo voltaic modules providing 20 kW of power. 30-day Shuttle/Spacelab
missions docked to the power station are assumed for this phase.

Human Tended Capability would be provided by the addition of the U.S.
Common Module Module which adds subsystems and 9 payload racks and docking
ports for ESA and Japanese laboratories. 60-day missions with the orbiter
docked to the station are assumed for this phase. Different
operation/utilization modes are being studied for this phase.

 Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
B activities. Griffin detailed the evolution of the Freedom-derived option,
from initial Research Capability, to Human-Tended Capability, to Permanent
Human Presence Capability, to Two Fault Tolerance, and finally Permanent
Human Capability. Griffin also outlined proposed systems changes to the
baseline program, with minor changes to the Communications and Tracking
system, Crew Health Care System and ECLSS, and a major change to the Data
Management System.

Initial Research Capability would be achieved with 2 flights to 28.5 degree
inclination (3 flights to 51.6 degrees) and consist of an extended duration
orbiter-Spacelab combination docked to a truss segment with 2 photo voltaic
arrays providing 18.75 kW of power.

Human-Tended Capability would be achieved in 6 flights and add truss
segments and the U.S. lab.

Permanent Human Presence Capability would be achieved in 8 flights with two
orbiters providing habitation and assured crew return.

Two Fault Tolerance, achieved in 11 flights, would build out the other
section of truss with another set of PV modules, thermal control and
propulsion systems.

The freedom derived configuration could achieve an International Complete
state with 16 flights.  Three more flights, to bring up the habitat module,
a third PV array and two Assured Crew Return Vehicles (ACRV) would complete
the Permanent Human Capability with International stage.

Griffin told the Redesign Advisory Committee that eliminating hardware
would not, by itself, meet budget guidelines for the Freedom derived
option.  Major reductions or deferrals must occur in other areas including
program management, contractor non-hardware, early utilization and
operations costs, he said.

 Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
and jettisoned after ET separation.

The module, 23 feet in diameter and 92 feet long, would provide 26,000
cubic feet of pressured volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a
centralized passageway.  Seven berthing ports would be located at various
places on the circumference of the module to place the international
modules, and other elements.  This "can" would have two fixed photo voltaic
arrays producing approximately 40 kW of power flying in a solar interial
attitude.

In his closing comments to the Redesign Advisory Committee, Bryan O'Connor
said a design freeze would be established for the 3 options on April 26 so
that detailed costing of the options can begin.  The next meeting with the
Redesign Advisory Committee will be May 3.

Russian Consultants Arrive in U.S. -- A delegation of 16 Russian space
experts arrived in the U.S. on April 21 and briefings to the SRT by members
of the Russian team began on the 22nd.  The group includes Russian Space
Agency General Director Y. M. Koptev, and V. A. Yatsenko, also of the RSA. 
Others on the team include representatives from the Ministry of Defense,
the Design Bureau SALYUT, the Institute of Biomedical Problems, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NPO Energia and TsNIJMASH.  The Russian team
briefed the SRT on environmental control and life support system, docking
systems, the Proton launch vehicle, Mir operations and utilization, and the
Soyuz TM spacecraft.

The Russian consultants are available to the SRT to assess the capabilities
of the Mir space station, and the possible use of Mir and other Russian
capabilities and systems as part of the space station redesign.  They will
be available to the SRT through May 5.

Management and Operations Review Continues --  Work continued in the SRT
subgroups.  The Management Group under Dr. Walt Brooks is working to
develop a family of options that solve the current problems and build a
foundation for the transition to development and operations.  Various
management options have been developed including:

 Lead Center with the Center Director in the programmatic chain of
command.

 Host Center with the Program Manager reporting directly to an Associate
Administrator.

 Skunk Works/Dedicated Program Office with a small dedicated co-located
hand-picked program office.

 Combine Space Station with Shuttle, with the space station becoming an
element of the current program.

 Major Tune Up to Current Organization, with current contracts and
geographical distribution maintained but streamlined.

The Operations Group under Dr. John Cox is building on the work of the
Operations Phase Assessment Team lead by Gene Kranz of NASA-JSC, which had
already begun a comprehensive review of operations and had concluded in its
preliminary results that significant cost reductions are possible.

As part of its work,  the Operations Group has identified teams of agency
experts to develop detailed evaluations of each design in the areas of
assembly and operations, utilization, maintenance and logistics and testing
and ground operations.

What's in the Week Ahead? -- The Design Support Teams will provide a
comprehensive status of their option to the Station Redesign Team on Monday
and Tuesday at which point the design will be "frozen" to begin the
detailed cost assessment.   Also this week, the team will begin preparing
for the next round of discussions with the redesign Advisory Committee, to
be held May 3.

Dr. Shea Steps Down --  Dr. Joe Shea stepped down as director of the
Station Redesign Team on April 22 and Bryan O'Connor will take over the
activities of the team.  Dr. Shea submitted his resignation as assistant
deputy administrator for space station analysis, but will continue to serve
as a special advisory to NASA Administrator Goldin and be available to
consult with the SRT. Mr Goldin accepted the resignation so that a request
from Dr. Shea to reduce his workload could be accommodated.

Key Milestones -- The key dates for the SRT as they are currently being
carried on the schedule are:

April 26
Design Freeze on Options for Costing

April 27
Design Support Team Present Selected Options to SRT

May 3
Status report to Redesign Advisory Committee

May 15
Interim report by Redesign Advisory Committee

June 7
Final report to Redesign Advisory Committee


(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61294
From: jan@vesta.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Jan Vorbrueggen)
Subject: Re: New planet/Kuiper object found?

In article <C64t8E.6HB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Josh Hopkins) writes:

   Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a 
   perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure 
   that I don't know what that reason is.

Read John le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", "The Honorable Schoolboy"
or "Smiley's People".

	Jan

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61295
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...

In article <1993Apr27.072512.439@bby.com.au>, gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> 
>    ...  So how about this?  Give the winning group
>    (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
>    moratorium on taxes.
> 
> You are talking about the bozos who can't even manage in November to
> keep promises about taxes made in October, and you expect them to make
> (and keep!) a 50-year promise like that?  

We want to give lawyers something to do in the 21st cen., don't we?

>Your faith in the political
> system is much higher than mine.  I wouldn't even begin to expect that
> in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you
> do.

Oh I bet you do.  They are probably just better at it than our crooks. :-)

> --
> Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
>    Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
>    Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
> (Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

Tom Freebairn | We came.
	      | We saw.
	      | We went home.
		Some early 20th cen. baseball player
		Anybody know who or why? (definitly e-mail stuff.)		

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61298
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Solid state vs. tube/analog

In article <C6479K.6BA.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
|
|Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
|they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
|than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
>"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)
>

Of course,  they then  turn up the REverb, the Gain,  add in the analog
delay line  and the Fuzz box.  I'd think they wouldn't notice the
distortion.   Oh I forgot the phase shifters.

>Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
>mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.


Ah,  but how do they compare to Mechanical systems :-)

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61299
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:

>In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
>  Sorry, you have a _wish_ for an uncluttered night sky, but it
>isn't a right. When you get down to it, you actually have no rights
>that the majority haven't agreed to give you (and them in the process).
>It's a common misconception that being born somehow endows you with
>rights to this that and the other. Sadly this is not true.
>  Now if you want to talk about the responsibility that _should_ go with
>the power to clutter the night sky, then that's a different matter.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

According to this reasoning there are no rights, at least none that I can think 
of....

Let's see.  Do I have a right to unpolluted air?  No, because the majority
drive cars and use goods that create air pollution in the manufacturing process.

Do I have the right to clean water?  I guess not, by the same reasoning.
I could go on with these examples for a long time....

Look at Nazi Germany.  Because of the majority, Jews, homosexuals, blacks,
and others that were different had no rights.  In fact they were terrorized, 
imprisoned, and slaughtered.  In this country did blacks have the right to be
free from slavery?  I guess not, because the majority said that slavery was 
good for them.

I think that a right has a moral imperative.  If a law, imposed by the majority,
is immoral, one should not follow it.  In fact, one should do everything in
his/her power to stop it. Of course, that doesn't mean that I would lose all
common sense to break the law, just because I thought it was immoral.  I pay
my Federal Income Tax even though I am morally opposed to the U.S. Government
taking my money and spending it on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make.  We should _persude_ people 
by logic, pointing out that it is in their self-interest to let all have
equal rights in all aspects of life, including adequate housing, food, and
medical care.  I just happen to think that for a full life the aesthetic of
beauty and joy is also necessary.  That is why I consider an uncluttered
night sky a right.

Have you ever been out in the desert, away from local lights, and most people?
The sky is dark and transparent.  The Milky Way is ablaze with more detail
than you thought possible.  The beauty and wonder takes your breath away.

Now imagine you live in the worst ghetto, say in L.A. Due to light pollution
you have never seen a dark sky.  You might in fact never, not in your whole
life, ever see the majesty of the night sky.  Every where around you, you see
squalor, and through your life runs a thread of dispair. What is there to live
for?  

I admit these two scenarios are extreme examples, but I have seen both.
I, for one, need dreams and hopes, and yes, beauty, as a reason for living.
That is why I consider an uncluttered night sky a right.

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferfish Observatory          <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61300
From: rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
|> If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
|> then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
|> here?
|> 

Reboost may not be a problem, if they have enough fuel.  If they don't do a 
reboost this time, they will definitely have to do one on the next servicing
mission.  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
with that much weight in the payload.

|> Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
|> horrendous expense?
|> 

of course that is a concern too, and the loss of science during the time
that it is on the ground.  plus a fear that if it comes down, some
big-wig might not allow it to go back up.  but the main concern, I
believe is the danger of the landing.  Just to add another bad vibe,
they also increase the risk of damaging an instrument.  Finally, 
this is a chance for NASA astronanuts to prove they could build and
service a space station.  Hubble was designed for in flight servicing.

bringing the telescope down, to my understanding, was considered
even very recently, but all these factors contribute to the 
decision to do it the way it was planned in the beginning.

|> Gruss,
|> Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
|> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
|> bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

ROB
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |
| Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     |
===========================================================================

Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course 
	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines. 
	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful
	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61301
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
>Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
>

My apologies if this is a re-post - I submitted it on Friday, but 
got a message that my post might not have gone out.  Considering 
the confusing spitting contest over 'rights', (there are TOO 
inalienable rights damn it!  The majority can be just as destructive 
of liberty as a despot), I suspect that my post did not get out 
of my site.    (I ain't saying that dark skies are included in these 
rights, although we can only preserve any rights by exercising them.) 



Anyway, here are my thoughts on this: 


I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly 
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for 
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I 
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may 
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred - 
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars 
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and 
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time 
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man. 
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.  
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there 
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief 
in an afterlife.  

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks 
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light 
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people 
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating 
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or 
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.  
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky. 

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live 
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport 
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The 
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists 
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped 
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life 
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels 
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains 
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing, 
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed 
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80 
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters 
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of 
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect. 

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't 
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever - 
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch 
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer, 
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.  
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at 
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.  

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage 
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at 
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the 
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it 
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could 
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky 
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that 
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid, 
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 


(P.S. added Tuesday - this again is not a rights/vs./reality tome, 
just a warning that someone into destroying beauty had better know 
that other people may not accept it without a complaint.)  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61302
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes:
=Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
=assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
=always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
=If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
=a "NO-OP" command.

Using your argument, the NOOP operation in a computer isn't a NOOP, since it
causes the PC to be incremented.

=Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
=nothing to do with jet propulsion.

Of course, the complaint comes from someone who hasn't a clue as to what he's
talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61303
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?

The forces and accelerations involved in doing a little bit of orbital
maneuvering with HST aboard are much smaller than those involved in
reentry, landing, and re-launch.  The OMS engines aren't very powerful;
they don't have to be.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61304
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <1993Apr26.222659.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
>discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
>such..

Why bother with a new newsgroup?  If you want to discuss the subject,
*start discussing it*.  If there is enough traffic to annoy the rest of
us, we will let you know... and *then* it will be time for a new newsgroup.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61305
From: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Littlefield)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?

In article <15657.2bd7de55@cpva.saic.com>, thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes:
[ stuff deleted ]
|> 
|> 
|>     This leads to the more general question: do yet other people than 
|> the US, Russia, and Japan do space surveillance, and if so, how and 
|> why? 
|> 
|> Allen Thomson              SAIC                        McLean, VA, USA

The French SPOT is an example that comes to mind.  Although the
company (name escapes me at the moment) sells images world-wide, you
can bet your last dollar (franc??) that the French gov't gets first
dibs.

I remember a few years ago (about the time SPOT was launched), I
was speaking to my Dad (an USAF officer) about this and that, and I
happend to mention SPOT (I think we were talking about technology
utilization).  He just about went ballistic.  He wanted to know how I
knew about SPOT and just what I knew.  I guess that space surveillance
is such a sensitive topic in the Air Force that he couldn't believe
that I would read about such a system in the popular press (ie. AV week).

mark, 
-- 
=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield              Intelligent Systems Department
internet: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov 
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences 
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MC C-19            
          Houston, TX 77058-3711
====================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61306
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]")
Subject: Tsniimach Enterprise

From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
> 
> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
> 
> 7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
> [..]
> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
> establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection 
> of spacecraft and which has participated in the development of 
> the Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
> facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 

If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow,
it is in fact the ex-East Prussian Konigsberg, now a Russian
enclave on the Baltic coast.  It is served by ships and rail, 
and the intrepid traveller in Europe would find it accessible 
and might even want to try to arrange a tour (??).

* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!  

P.S. I'm quite glad that a couple of people stated quite eloquently 
     the aesthetic/natural objections to the space billboard.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61307
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

   I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
just wanted to add a point.

   The whole question of "a right to a dark sky" revolves around the
definition of a right.  Moral rights and natural rights are all well and
good, but as far as I can see, a right is whatever you or someone
representing you can enforce.  In most civilizations, the government or
the church (or both) defines what the rights of the citizens are, and
then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have
comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right
to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the
U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To
keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law
and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague,
something I know little about.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61308
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?

The European Space Agency has involvement with remote earth 
observation, and I presume this includes surveillance (optical etc.).
So it's not just the US/USSR(ex) who are in the game.

But what *is* the game? What can be done with space observation?
The military functions of missile spotting, troop spotting etc. are well
documented, but what about anything else?

The biggest eg I can think of is to get a  metal sensing sat over a
paying country and scan their territory for  precious metals.

More importantly, if radar can spot water vapour (clouds), presumably
a radar based sat will be capable of spotting rivers,open water and 
*underground water* from space. This would be a positive life saver
for African or other drought affected countries. Implementing a
clean water and irrigation program would be of imense benifit to such
countries and should cut down mortalities considerably.

So how about it? Is there a charity or government agency that would
pay for a third world country to have their minerals and water deposits
mapped?

Or is this still sci-fi?

Mail replies would be great.

Thought for the day: Thermal energy needs water to make steam so sstick
it in the ocean!


-- 
****************************************************************************  
                  Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61309
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

In Space Digest V16 #487,
hathaway@stsci.edu writes:

...about the protests over proposals to put a giant billboard into orbit,

>I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
>practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for research
>activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I would complain about
>is rooted in aesthetics. 

>Regards, 
>Wm. Hathaway 
>Baltimore MD 

Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

Regular orbiting spacecraft are not the same in this respect, since they are
more like abstract entities, but a billboard in space would be like a beer
can somebody had thrown on the side of the road: just trash.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of
  The Center for Space Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas
   UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER or greer@utdcss.utdallas.edu
"Let machines multiply, doing the work of many,
               But let the people have no use for them." - Lao Tzu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61310
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

Come on, this is sci.space.  An orbital billboard won't
do any permanent damage; in a few years it will reenter
and probably hit Los Angles anyway :-)

The boost to space commerce orbital advertising might
provide might speed the day it is possible for those with a 
yen for dark skies to get some really dark skies beyond
the dust producing the zodiacal light. 

Now, if they wanted to paint the CocaCola symbol on the
moon in lampblack, that would give me pause.  It would
be very difficult to reverse such a widespread application
of pigments.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61311
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:



   In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
   > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
   part of the Oort cloud.

   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
   isn't a mechanism for the others either.

What on Earth is the "gravisphere"?
Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter
had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they 
detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors
do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances.
In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would
see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.

_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
least it was a good try...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61312
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: temperature of the dark sky

Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
(night) sky as seen from space?

Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is substantially
higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like stars and the
zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61313
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Words from the Chairman of Boeing on SSTO type stuff


  Yesterday, I went to the Boeing shareholders meeting.  It was a bit shorter
than I expected.  Last year (when the stock was first down), they made a big
presentation on the 777, and other programs.  This year, it was much more
bare-bones.

In any case, I wanted to ask a question that the board of directors would
hear, and so I got there early, and figured that If I didn't get to the mike,
maybe they would read mine off of a card, and so I wrote it down, and handed it
in.

After the meeting started, Mr. Shrontz said that he would only answer written
questions, in order to be fair to the people in the overflow room that only
had monitors downstairs.  Naturally, I was crushed.

So, when question and answer time came, I was suprised to find my question
being read and answered.  Admittedly near the end of the ones that he took.
Presumably getting there early, and getting the question in early made all
the difference.

So, on to the substance. The question was 

Is Boeing looking at anything BEYOND the high speed Civil Transport, such
as a commercial space launch system, and if not, how will Boeing compete
with the reusable single stage to orbit technology presently being developed
by Mcdonnell Douglass?

Well, he read it without a hitch, and without editing, with impressed me,
then he answered it very quickly treating it as a two part question, last
part first.

This is to the best of my recollection what he said.

As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have a better
answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some of our customers 
about that.  As far as commercialization, that is a long ways off.  The High
speed Civil Transport is about as far out as our commercial planning goes at
this point.

So, this tells me that Boeing still considers space to be a non-commercial
arena, and for the most part this is true, however it also tells me that 
they consider there to be enough money in building space launchers for them
to persue work on their own.

Now, I do have a friend on the spacelifter program at boeing.  Actually,
this is a mis-nomer, as there is no spacelifter contract for the work that this
guy is doing, however, he is doing work in preparation of a proposal for space
lifter contracts.  He won't tell me what he is doing, but maybe this is where
the TSTO action is taking place at boeing.  At the very minimum, the chairman
of the board of boeing said that they have an approach in mind, and they are
trying to do something with it.  

Anybody know anything further?
Is this really news?
Does this threaten further work on DC-? ?

                    John.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61314
From: hillig@U.Chem.LSA.UMich.EDU (Kurt Hillig)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <C65o4t.A7o@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>(night) sky as seen from space?
>
>Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
>Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
>after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
>disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
>My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is substantially
>higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like stars and the
>zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.
>-- 
>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

It's not quite what you were asking, but a few years ago I helped some EE
remote sensing people run some experiments on the microwave emmissivity of
ice; they used the sky for a background calibration source.  They said that
from Earth's surface the sky looks like a 60K blackbody.

-- 
     Dr. Kurt Hillig
   Dept. of Chemistry      I always tell the    phone (313)747-2867
 University of Michigan     absolute truth    X.500 khillig@umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1055    as I see it.    hillig@chem.lsa.umich.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61315
From: lcm@spl1.spl.loral.com (Luciana C. Messina)
Subject:  Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


Another factor against bringing the HST back to Earth is risk of contamination.

Luciana C. Messina
lcm@spl1.spl.loral.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61316
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Space Calendar - 04/27/93

     The Space Calendar is updated monthly and the latest copy is available
at ames.arc.nasa.gov in the /pub/SPACE/FAQ.  Please send any updates or
corrections to Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov).  Note that launch
dates are subject to change.

     The following person made contributions to this month's calendar:

        o Dennis Newkirk - Soyuz TM-18 Launch Date (Dec 1993).


                          =========================
                               SPACE CALENDAR
                               April 27, 1993
                          =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

April 1993
* Apr 29 - Astra 1C Ariane Launch

May 1993
  May ?? - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
  May ?? - Radcal Scout Launch
  May ?? - GPS/PMQ Delta II Launch
* May ?? - Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) Conestoga Launch
* May 01 - Astronomy Day
* May 01-2 - Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse
  May 04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again
  May 04 - Eta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 21:00 UT, Solar Lon: 44.5 deg)
* May 13 - Air Force Titan 4 Launch
* May 18 - STS-57, Endeavour, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R)
* May 20 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbiter Launch
  May 21 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from North America & Northern Europe
  May 25 - Magellan, Aerobraking Begins

June 1993
  Jun ?? - Temisat Meteor 2 Launch
  Jun ?? - UHF-2 Atlas Launch
  Jun ?? - NOAA-I Atlas Launch
  Jun ?? - First Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned
  Jun ?? - Hispasat 1B & Insat 2B Ariane Launch
  Jun 04 - Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America
  Jun 14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan)
  Jun 22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy
  Jun 30 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite

July 1993
  Jul ?? - MSTI-II Scout Launch
  Jul ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
  Jul 01 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet)
  Jul 08 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet)
  Jul 14 - Soyuz TM-16 Landing (Soviet)
* Jul 20-21 - Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse
  Jul 21 - Soyuz TM-17 Landing (Soviet)
  Jul 28 - S. Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 19:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 125.8 degrees)
  Jul 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday

August 1993
  Aug ?? - ETS-VI (Engineering Test Satellite) H2 Launch (Japan)
  Aug ?? - GEOS-J Launch
  Aug ?? - Landsat 6 Launch
  Aug ?? - ORBCOM FDM Pegasus Launch
* Aug 08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus 2 Launch (Atmospheric Probes)
  Aug 09 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-4)
  Aug 12 - N. Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 07:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 139.7 degrees)
  Aug 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 15:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 140.1 degrees)
  Aug 24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI)
  Aug 25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2)
  Aug 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby

September 1993
  Sep ?? - SPOT-3 Ariane Launch
  Sep ?? - Tubsat Launch
  Sep ?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch

October 1993
  Oct ?? - Intelsat 7 F1 Ariane Launch
  Oct ?? - SLV-1 Pegasus Launch
  Oct ?? - Telstar 4 Atlas Launch
  Oct 01 - SeaWIFS Launch
  Oct 22 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           208.7 degrees)

November 1993
  Nov ?? - Solidaridad/MOP-3 Ariane Launch
  Nov 03 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Launch (Mercury & Venus Flyby Mission)
  Nov 03 - S. Taurid Meteor Shower
  Nov 04 - Galileo Exits Asteroid Belt
  Nov 06 - Mercury Transits Across the Sun, Visible from Asia, Australia, and
           the South Pacific
* Nov 08 - Mars Observer, Mapping Orbit Established
  Nov 10 - STS-60, Discovery, SPACEHAB-2
  Nov 13 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from Southern Hemisphere
  Nov 15 - Wilhelm Herschel's 255th Birthday
  Nov 17 - Leonids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 13:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           235.3 degrees)
* Nov 22 - Mars Observer, Mapping Begins
  Nov 28-29 - Total Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America & South America

December 1993
  Dec ?? - GOES-I Atlas Launch
  Dec ?? - NATO 4B Delta Launch
  Dec ?? - TOMS Pegasus Launch
  Dec ?? - DirectTv 1 & Thiacom 1 Ariane Launch
  Dec ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch
  Dec ?? - STEP-2 Pegasus Launch
* Dec ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Launch (Soviet)
  Dec 02 - STS-61, Endeavour, Hubble Space Telescope Repair
  Dec 04 - SPEKTR-R Launch (Soviet)
* Dec 05 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 10 Jupiter Flyby
  Dec 08 - Mars Observer, Mars Equinox
  Dec 14 - Geminids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 262.1 degrees)
  Dec 20 - Mars Observer, Solar Conjunction Begins
  Dec 23 - Ursids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 01:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 271.3 degrees)

January 1994
  Jan 03 - Mars Observer, End of Solar Conjunction
  Jan 24 - Clementine Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter, Asteroid Flyby Mission)

February 1994
  Feb ?? - SFU Launch
  Feb ?? - GMS-5 Launch
  Feb 05 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Venus Flyby
  Feb 08 - STS-62, Columbia, U.S. Microgravity Payload (USMP-2)
  Feb 15 - Galileo's 430th Birthday
  Feb 21 - Clementine, Lunar Orbit Insertion
  Feb 25 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 6 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)

March 1994
  Mar ?? - TC-2C Launch
  Mar 05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Jupiter flyby
  Mar 14 - Albert Einstein's 115th Birthday
  Mar 27 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 7 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)
  Mar 29 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10, 1st Mercury Flyby
* Mar 31 - Galaxy 1R Delta 2 Launch

April 1994
* Apr ?? - Equator S Scout Launch
* Apr 04 - Mars Observer, Perihelion
* Apr 14 - STS-59, Atlantis, SRL-1
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61317
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: $1bil space race ideas/moon base on the cheap.

Although the $1 billion scheme is a fantasy (it's an old canard in the space
business called "trolling for billionaires"), there is a good chance that a
much smaller program ($65 million) will pass the 103rd Congress. This is the
Back to the Moon bill, put together by the people who passed the Launch
Services Purchase Act. The bill would incent private companies to develop
lunar orbiters, with vendors selected on the basis of competitive bidding.
There is an aggregate cap on the bids of $65 million.
 
Having a single rich individual paying billions for lunar missions is probably
worse than having the government bankroll a $65 million program, as the Delta
Clipper program has shown (DC-X was funded by SDIO at $59 million). We have a
clear chance of making a lunar mission happen in this decade - as opposed to
simply wishing for our dreams to come true. Please support the Back to the
Moon bill.
 
For more information, please send E-mail with your U.S. postal service
address.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61318
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr27.185721.15511@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Now, if they wanted to paint the CocaCola symbol on the
>moon in lampblack, that would give me pause...

Wouldn't bother me.  I'd laugh.  It wouldn't work -- the surface of the
Moon is *already* pretty dark, and the contrast would be so poor you
couldn't possibly see it.  The only reason the Moon looks bright is that
it's in bright sunlight against an otherwise-dark sky.  Evidently Heinlein
didn't know that...
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61319
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
> just wanted to add a point.
> 
.. 
> then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
> provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
> considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have

These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH??? 
All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent 
of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper.  Civilized gov'mnt 
is not an autonomous computer program, it's interactive.  The Constitution 
was made by the people and can be trashed by us - it ain't no sacred 
scripture from which rights flow.  Our 'rights' come from our souls. 
And I sure didn't see any request to vote on trashing the sky.  
Again - my opinion only - we keep our rights by using them, not going to 
some court.  

> comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right
> to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the
> U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To
> keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law
> and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague,
> something I know little about.
> 
> Doug Loss
> loss@husky.bloomu.edu


Most gracious regards, 
WHH 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61320
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <C63vvG.4J9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the
>prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can
>spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.

Fine. I'll buy from George. GEORGEEE!!!!

That assumes I can't weasel out a cooperative venture of some sort (cut me a
break on the launcher, I'll cut you in on the proceeds if it works).  Only the
government pays higher-than-list price. 

>What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
>investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
>the prize is just the icing on the cake.

Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD line
of aerospace products. 

If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better
than buying at "list price."  Does anyone REALLY know the profit margins built
in to the Titan?  C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
or that... 

>I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough
>return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current
>US launchers.  

Oh please.  How much of a profit do you want?  Pulling $100-150 million after
all is said and done wouldn't be too shabby.  Not to mention the other goodies
I'll collect in:

	a)  Movie & TV rights (say $100-150 million conservatively)
	b)  Advertising       ("Look Mommie, they're drinking Coke!")
	c)  Intangibles	      (Name recognization, experience & data 
				acculumated)

>You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch
>system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is
>of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.

If you want lean, fine.  A $500 million prize would be more than adequate for a
prize.

Maybe Wales would be kind enough to define what a company would consider
a decent profit.

If you want R&D done, you'll have to write in R&D clauses.  I suppose you could
make it a SBIR set-aside :)  



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61321
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93117.24999999  .00043819  00000-0  13174-3 0    47
2 22640  28.4694 264.3224 0004988 261.3916 194.3250 15.90699957   104
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61322
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>   [re: voyages of discovery...]
>   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

>If you believe 1492 (the film), Columbus had substantial private
>funds.  When Columbus asked the merchant why he put the money in, the
>guy said (slightly paraphrased) , "There is Faith, Hope and Charity.
>But greater than these is Banking."
>--

Heck, some of his ships were loaners. One was owned by a Basque...
(you know, one of those groups that probably crossed the Atlantic
_before_ Columbus came along).

>Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
>   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
>   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
>(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61323
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

In article <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
>from?
>
>But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
>everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?

The SEI. Software Engineering Institute, a DoD funded part of Carnegie Mellon
University.  You can read about part of it in Ed Yourdon's The Decline and
Fall of the American Programmer (Yourdon Press).

Just passing thru.....

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61324
From: rostroff@watson.princeton.edu (robert ostroff)
Subject: Comet Launch Date

Hello out there,
If your familiar with the COMET program then this concerns you.
COMET is scheduled to be launched from Wallops Island sometime in June.
Does anyone know if an official launch date has been set?

Thanks,
Rob

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61325
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <1rkb56INN9hs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on
>>investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and
>>the prize is just the icing on the cake.
>
>Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD
>line of aerospace products. 

I think you've got an off-by-one error in your memory. :-)  MM bought the
satellite-building side of GE.  E, not D.  MM and GD are still competitors.

>If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better
>than buying at "list price."

Better, yes, but we're not talking order of magnitude.  (Especially if you
want to use Titan IV, which belongs to the USAF, not MM.)

>... C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
>or that... 

Sure, you can get a heavylift launcher fairly cheap if you do it privately
rather than as a gummint project.  But we're still talking about something
that will cost nine digits per launch, unless you can guarantee a large
market to justify volume production.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61326
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Space surveillance: what I really meant

      Thanks to the people who have answered here and in email to my 
question about which countries engage in space surveillance. 
Unfortunately, I apparently didn't make the meaning of the message 
clear, since most replies have addressed satellite reconnaissance, 
rather than space surveillance 

     What I meant was _not_ which countries use satellites to look at 
the Earth (satellite reconnaissance) , but _was_ which countries have 
programs to detect and track (i.e., determine the orbital elements of) 
satellites as they pass overhead (space surveillance). 

    The US uses missile-defense radars, supplemented by a fascinating 
quasi-radar operated by the Navy, to do this for satellites in LEO, and 
electrooptical systems for objects at altitudes above 5,000 km or so. 
The FEE, I understand, does much the same thing. 

    Amateur satellite observers use eyeballs, binoculars, stopwatches 
and PCs for objects out to around 1500 km, enabling them to keep track 
of satellites for which, ah, official element sets aren't available. 
See the fascinating books by Desmond King-Hele for details, as well as 
the files in the molczan directory on kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov.  The 
material posted in my previous message suggests that Japan engages in 
optical and radar space surveillance to a modest degree, and it may be 
that other countries do also. 

    Which was the question I meant to ask: who are they, how do they do 
it, and why do they do it?


Allen Thomson                     SAIC                        McLean, VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, yes: I don't speak for SAIC.  


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61327
From: madison@wam.umd.edu (Rob Shearman Jr.)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions


Excerpt From: rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye)

:Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
:
:1.	Calculators
:2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
:3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

                    Don't forget Tang!  ::smile::

 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
    Robert M. Shearman, Jr.  University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
            E-Mail: madison@wam.umd.edu   "WILL WORK FOR CHOCOLATE"
 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61328
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: U.K.: see Mir in evening skies!

Astronomy & Space magazine's UK telephone newsline carries the times to
see the Russian Space Station Mir which will be visible every EVENING (some
time between 9 o'clock and midnight) from April 27 to May 7. It's about as
bright as Jupiter at its best. There are two cosmonuats on board.

For the time to watch, tel. 0891-88-19-50 (48p/min peak 36p/min all other
times, but prediction is at start of the weekly message so it only costs a
few pence).

E-mail reports of sightings would be appreciated: give lat/long and UT (a
few seconds accuracy if possible) when it passes ABOVE or BELOW any bright
star (say brighter than mag. 3), planet or Moon.

With Moon in evening sky also, note that from somewhere in U.K. Mir will
pass in front of the Moon each night! Please alert local clubs to the
telephone newsline, and general public as Mir can cause quite a stir!

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61329
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Tsniimach Enterprise

In article <C67Hv9.7nG.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
>From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
>> 
>> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military 
>> establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection 
>> of spacecraft and which has participated in the development of 
>> the Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia 
>> facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow. 
>
>If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow,

Correction, and some more info: The Kaliningrad that Mr. Larrison
writes about is indeed near Moscow. I've read that it may also be known by
the name Podlipk, and is a short distance from Zvezdny Gorodok (Star 
City) and the Cosmonaut Training Center there. I read that the Tsniimach
(Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building, est. 1961) 
Enterprise was also responsible for creating the NKIK (Ground Command and 
Measurement Complex) including the Kaliningrad Flight Control Center
which has controlled all Soviet/Russian manned spaceflights since its
completion in 1973. However, it appears to have been a part of the 
Ministry of General Machine Building which was not part of the military
(Ministry of Defense) but would have been a part of the military-industrial
complex. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61330
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: U.K.: See Mir in Evening skies - tell friends!

Astronomy & Space magazine's UK telephone newsline carries the times to
see the Russian Space Station Mir which will be visible every EVENING (some
time between 9 o'clock and midnight) from April 27 to May 7. It's about as
bright as Jupiter at its best. There are two cosmonuats on board.

For the time to watch, tel. 0891-88-19-50 (48p/min peak 36p/min all other
times, but prediction is at start of the weekly message so it only costs a
few pence).

E-mail reports of sightings would be appreciated: give lat/long and UT (a
few seconds accuracy if possible) when it passes ABOVE or BELOW any bright
star (say brighter than mag. 3), planet or Moon.

With Moon in evening sky also, note that from somewhere in U.K. Mir will
pass in front of the Moon each night! Please alert local clubs to the
telephone newsline, and general public as Mir can cause quite a stir!

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

P.S.: Mir seen right on time April 28th, passed just above Jupiter. Brighter
than Arcturus but dimmer than Jupiter (not one of its highest passes!).

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61331
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.185206.3501@news.arc.nasa.gov> moses@pan.arc.nasa.gov (julie moses) writes:
>...radiation field has been measured and modeled by various groups.  If I
>remember things correctly, the models involved contributions from three
>different BB sources, so there's no obvious "temperature" of background
>radiation in our local area...

Indeed, the sky doesn't look much like a black body if you look carefully
enough; in particular, its temperature at radio frequencies is quite a
bit higher than you would see from a black body.  Morgan&Gordon's fat
"Communications Satellite Handbook" has a graph of sky temperature vs.
wavelength, in fact, for communications design.

However, in terms of energy content, the RF frequencies are negligible.
For thermal purposes, at very large distances from the Sun the sky
looks like a black body at 3.5K (Allen, "Astrophysical Quantities").
I haven't found a number for non-large distances, since solar radiation
tends to be something you can't just ignore :-), but M&G says "about 4K"
in a brief discussion of why solar radiation dominates the problem.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61332
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)

          
          
          (Book Review):
          
          
          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North 
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, 
          hardcover. 
          

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to 
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries. 
          
               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged 
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.  
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is 
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988). 
          
               Most books and journal articles on the subject of 
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial 
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by 
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except 
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.  
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical 
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual 
          validity. 
          
               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor 
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State 
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books 
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the 
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements 
          they contain. 
          
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical 
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE, 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of 
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and 
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of 
          space and time: 
          
               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME. 
          
               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN. 
          
               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a 
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic 
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the 
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was 
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with 
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including 
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959 
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, 
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They 
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And 
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation 
          ready for those also. 
          
               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE 
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the 
          sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists, 
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter, 
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure), 
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass 
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in 
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be 
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very 
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles, 
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc., 
          used to maintain them. 
          
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.  
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from 
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters, 
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that 
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in 
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy 
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to 
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life 
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and 
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of 
          SINGLE stars. 
          
               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according 
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have 
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies 
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT 
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME). 
          
               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against 
          observations that contradict their theories would find 
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an 
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY 
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the 
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray 
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from 
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any 
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional 
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray 
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER 
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic 
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a 
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed 
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE 
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the 
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly 
          at random. 
          
               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from 
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and 
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted 
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the 
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book 
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann, 
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if 
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars 
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains 
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are 
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists, 
          astronomers, and astrophysicists. 


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (Larson's BOOKS). 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED. 

          
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
                    


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61333
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Long term Human Missions

Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight
to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.

So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk
about it; I shall.

I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources
to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate
on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent 
as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and 
probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands
the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence
of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.

I believe that we as a group have the responsibility to not only
communicate amongst ourselves, but also with others through print media.

A well-orchestrated and technically oriented analysis of life science
variables required to support long-duration spaceflight (like long
expenditions to the moon or Mars) would be entertaining and educational
to the general public.  The objective of such an effort would be to 
compile resources and publications from accepted scientific and technical
journals which would address each major life science area.  In addition,
ideas for further research and development could be put forward for
the general public to ponder...allowing the general public to take
part in the excitement of exploration.

Individuals interested should be willing to devote an hour per week
to running literature searches and finding journal articles.  In addition,
we need to obtain the assistance of personnel from within the halls
of NASA and industry.

I have appreciated the positive responses to date and I am personally
eager to start this project.  Perhaps we could start with debate regarding
how best to grade the viability of various technologies for application
to spaceflight.

ken

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61334
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
>but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
>to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
>pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.
> 

Well, I'll avoid your question for now (got some learnin' to do) with a
promise to come back with more info when I can find it.  I _do_ know that
BATSE is the primary instrument in the development of the all-sky map of
long-term sources.  Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
any help.

Speaking of GRO, the net-world probably was happy to see that the preps
for orbit adjust appear to be going well.  Our branch guy who's helping
out says that things have gone smoothly with the iso-valve preps and the
burns will take place in mid-June.

Anyway, I'm off to find out more.  'Be back when I get some info.

David W. @ GSFC
"I don't know nuthin' 'bout measurin' no Gamma Rays"
_Gone with the Wind_, paraphrased

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61336
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky


henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?

     You'll find that in Allen, C.W., "Astrophysical Quantities", Athlone
Press, Dover, NH, 3rd edition, pp. 268-269 (1973).  To the accuracy it can
be calculated (see specific references in Allen about how it is
calculated), the temperature is 3 degrees K.

     Lots of people have remarked on this temperature.  The first may have
been in Eddington's book, "Internal Constitution of Stars", Ch. 13 (1926;
reprinted 1986), where he gives the "temperature of space" as 3 degrees.

     The source of this temperature is the radiation of starlight.

> My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is
> substantially higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like
> stars and the zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers.

     To the accuracy of measurement, it's the same temperature.  Some of us
think this may not be a coincidence.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61337
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
|much energy in one second? 
>                                                -jeremy


big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61338
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.


Well, I seem to have struck an  interesting discussion off.  Given that I
am not an astrophysicist  or nuclear physicist,  i'll have to boil it
down a bit.

1)  ALl the data on bursts to date,  shows a smooth random distribution.

2)  that means they aren't concentrated in  galactic cores, our or someone
elses.

3) If the distribution is smooth,  we are either seeing some  ENORMOUSLY
large phenomena  scattered at the edge of the universe  said phenomena
being subject to debate almost as vioent as the phenomena
	OR
we are seeing some phenomena  out at like the Oort cloud,  but then it needs
some potent little energy source,  that isn't detectable  by any other
current methods.

4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

5)  the bursts seem to bright to be something like black hole quanta or
super string  impacts or something like that.

So everyone is watching the data and arguing like mad in the meanwhile.

what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.

Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.   

Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.

Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
just a little speculative thinking folks.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61339
From: u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

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

>In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:



>   In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>   > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?   

>   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
>   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
>   part of the Oort cloud.

>   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
>   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
>   isn't a mechanism for the others either.

>What on Earth is the "gravisphere"?
>Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter
>had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they 
>detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors
>do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances.
>In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would
>see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.

>_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
>no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
>to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
>"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
>by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
>least it was a good try...

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
>*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

	Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.
Andrew Walker

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61340
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
|I say:
|What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
|would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
|at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
|would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.


Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to
sci.space.aesthetics.

Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
ruin the night sky.  

Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
include onobstructed air space.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61341
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr28150743@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   This does not propose a _mechanism_ for GRBs in the Oort (and, no,
   anti-matter annihilation does not fit the spectra at least as far
   as I understand annihilation spectra...). Big difference.
   That's ignoring the question of how you fit a distribution
   to the Oort distribution when the Oort distribution is not well
   known - in particular comet aphelia (which are not well known)
   are not a good measure of the Oort cloud distribution...

Merging neutron stars is at least a mechanism with about the right
energy, except it doesn't explain why there is no apparent correlation
with galaxies or galaxy structure, there is no mechanism for getting
all the energy out in gamma rays (with any significant amount of
baryons around there will be a lot of pair production, which makes a
plasma, which thermalizes the energy), it has trouble generating
enough energy to explain the most powerful bursts (10^52-53 ergs), it
happens too fast compared to the burst duration, and it is hard to
make tight-binaries of neutron stars.

Another cosmological mechinism is the catalytic conversion of a
neutron star to a strange star or the merger of two strange stars, but
that uses pretty far-out physics.

My point is that we don't have a good mechanism at any distance, so
GRB's are likely to be happening by an unknown mechanism, so we can't
rule out the Oort cloud.  What would be the spectrum of an event which
converts a comet to strange matter?  The spectra for primordial black
holes eating comets and antimatter comets colliding with matter comets
aren't quite right, but perhaps there is an unusual mechanism which
modifies the spectrum.  The energy matches very well for both of these
mechanisms.  According to Trevor Weeks, if the "Tunguska Meteorite"
was a mini-black hole collision with the earth, then there are likely
to be enough mini-black holes around that the rate for BH-comet
collisions matches the GRB rate well.

The fact that we don't know the distribution of comets in the Oort
cloud isn't a reason to rule them out; it makes it harder to rule them
out.  The point of the cited paper was that if we assume they got the
right distribution for the Oort cloud, it is hard but not impossible
to match that up with the distribution of GRB's.  If they got the
wrong distribution for the Oort cloud, they can't constrain any Oort-
cloud GRB's at all.

Executive summary: we don't know enough to rule out out the Oort
cloud.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61342
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu>, kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
> In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:
> 
>>Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
>>of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
>>determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
>>of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
>>give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
>>any help.
> 
> But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
> three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
> an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.
> Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors
> and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have
> any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to
> determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small 
> component to the positional error.  
> 
> Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
> require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
> cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
> now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
> that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).
> If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to 
> have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline.
> 
> The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and
> watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination
> when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from.
> 
> -Kevin
        Batse alone isn't always used to determine position.  WHen a
particularly bright burst occurs, There are a couple of other detectors that
catch it going off.  Pioneer 10 or 11 is the one I'm getting at here.  This
puppy is far enough away, that if a bright burst happens nearby, the huge
annulus created by it will hopefully intersect the line or general circle given
by BATSE, and we can get a moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3
degrees. That is the closest anyone has ever gotten with it.  
        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites. 
THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1
alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

        We decided against it.
                                                        -jeremy


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61343
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
>cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
>they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
>an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
>tilt  motor  fix.
>

	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
bay.

>pat



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61344
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes:
	   Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
   see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.

That's a very good point.  Perhaps none of the nearby stars have Oort
clouds?  Alpha-centauri is a multiple-star system; you wouldn't expect
an Oort cloud in it.  What's the nearest single-star that is likely to
have a planetary system?

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61345
From:  svn@aoibs.msk.su (Vladimir )
Subject: New inexpensive method for determining ore & oil locations


        Dear gentlemen!

The firm called "INTERBUSINESS,LTD" offers quite inexpensive
method to determine ore & oil locations all over the world.
In this method used data got from space satellites. Being
in your office and using theese data you can get a good statis-
tical prognosis of locations mentioned above.

        This prognosis could be done for any part of the world!
If you're interested in details please send E-mail:

        svn@aoibs.msk.su

        Sushkov Vladimir,
        Moscow, Russia.



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61346
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?

The temperature of intergalactic space (or intercluster or 
intersupercluster space) would be very, very close to the microwave 
background temperature, 2.73 kelvins.  I recall that in interstellar 
space in our neighborhood of the galaxy it's something like 4 K.

Is that what you were looking for?


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!apple!uuwest!max max@west.darkside.com  __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N  121 53 W /  \
If you like strategic games of interstellar conquest, ask about UNIVERSE! \__/
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  All things that are, are lights. -)(-

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61347
From: richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

 (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
> (night) sky as seen from space?
>
> Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
> Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
> after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
> disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.

   Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
radiation field?"

   If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
can range from 40K to 150K.  You might look in a conference proceedings
"Interstellar Processes", ed. D. J. Hollenbach and H. A. Thronson, Jr.,
published in 1987.  Try the articles by Tielens et al., Seab, and 
Black.

   Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association,
I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so 
varied.

   I hope this is what you were looking for....

-- 
-----                                                    Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."    richmond@astro.princeton.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61348
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions
From: ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul)

In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>
>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>
>1.	Calculators
>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
a good thing.

If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
and of itself.
--
Paul

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61349
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1993Apr26.155915.8998@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:

   I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the
   event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
   some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
   could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
   events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
   be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays 
   being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.

I believe the problem with this theory is that we see gamma-ray
sources at that energy range and their energy doesn't seem to be
significantly absorbed.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61350
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C65FDw.E8E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>According to this reasoning there are no rights, at least none that I can think
>of....
>
  You've got it. What you regard as a right, someone else will regard
as a privilege. Followups to some generic ethics and morality
newsgroup ....
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61351
From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter J Card)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <1rls95$9aj@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
>ruin the night sky.  

>Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
>include onobstructed air space.

You should have heard Prof. McNally , from my days as an astronomy
undergraduate, denouncing photon pollution. It was easy to imagine him
taking practical steps to modify the sodium lamps on the street
outside Mill Hill observatory with a 12-gauge shotgun :-)

However, seriously, it is possible to limit the effects of
streetlights, by adding a reflector, so that the light only
illuminates the ground, which is after all where you need it. As a
bonus, the power consumption required for a given illumination level
is reduced. Strangely enough, astronomers often seek to lobby elected
local authorities to use such lighting systems, with considerable
success in the desert areas around the major US observatories. At
least, thats what McNally told us, all those years ago.
( British local authorities couldn`t care less, as far as I can see )

I suppose that the "right" to dark skies is no more than an aspiration,
but it is a worthwhile one. Illuminated orbital billboards seem especially
yukky, and are presumably in the area of international law, if any, although
I do find the idea of a right to bear anti-satellite weapons intriguing.
-- 
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366 
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61352
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: Internet resources

exit




Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61353
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: Internet resources

I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

THANKS!

  KEITH MALINOWSKI
  STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
  P.O. Box 2472
  Stockton State College
  Pomona, New Jersey 08240


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61354
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

> getting at here.  This puppy is far enough away, that if a bright
> burst happens nearby, the huge annulus created by it will hopefully
> intersect the line or general circle given by BATSE, and we can get a
> moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3 degrees. That is the
> closest anyone has ever gotten with it.


You can do a whole hell of a lot better than 2 or 3 degrees with
the differential timing measurements from the interplanetary network.
Ignore the directional information from BATSE; just look at the time
of arrival.  With three detectors properly arranged, one can often
get positions down to ~arc minutes.

BTW, about Oort cloud sources: shouldn't this be testable in the
fairly near future?  Some of the GRBs have very short rise times (< 1
ms).  We could detect the curvature of the burst wavefront out to a
distance of on the order of b^2/(t c) where b is the detector spacing
and t the time resolution.  For t = 1 ms and b = 2 AU, this is on the
order of 16 light years.  I understand statistics will reduce this
number considerably, as would geometry if the burst is coming from the
wrong direction.

	Paul

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61355
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable
From: steveg@arc.ug.eds.com

In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
> In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:

>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>> [deleted]

>>
>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.
> 

This is the high-school science version; the original Rand study by
Stephen H Dole "Planets for Man" gives the harder numbers & graphs &
such (but predates Michael Hart's (& later) work on continuously 
habitable zones)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61356
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

> I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for
> Humans.  I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere
> evolve given a range of physical aspects of the planet.  The question
> is what physical aspects simply disallow earth like conditions.

This is a good question.  There are major blind spots in our understanding
of what makes the earth habitable.  For example, why does the earth's
atmosphere have the concentration of oxygen it does?  The naive
answer is "photosynthesis", but this is clearly incomplete.  Photosynthesis
by itself can't make the atmosphere oxygenated, as the oxygen produced
is consumed when the plants decay or are eaten.  What is needed
is photosynthesis plus some mechanism to sequester some fraction of
the resulting reduced material.

On earth, this mechanism is burial in seafloor sediments of organic
matter, mostly from oceanic sources.  However, this burial requires
continental sediments (in the deep ocean, the burial rate is so slow
that most material is consumed before it can be sequestered).

This suggests that a planet without large oceans, or a planet without
continents undergoing weathering, will have a hard time accumulating
an oxygen atmosphere.  In particular, an all-ocean planet may have a
hard time supporting an oxygen atmosphere.

There is also the problem of why the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere
has been relatively stable over geological time, for a period at least
2 orders of magnitude longer than the decay time of atmospheric O2 to
weathering in the absence of replenishment.  No convincing feedback
mechanism has been identified.  Perhaps the reason is the weak
anthropic principle: if during the last 500 MYr or so, the oxygen
level had dropped too low, we wouldn't be here to be wondering about
it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61357
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr27.174622.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:
>>    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I
>> just wanted to add a point.
>> 
>.. 
>> then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution
>> provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are
>> considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have
>
>These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH??? 
>All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent 
>of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper.
>
   We don't disagree on this.  All I said was that a right is whatever
you or somebody acting for you can enforce.  The Bill of Rights didn't
come into effect until it was ratified by the states (and indirectly,
the people); from that point it defined legal rights.  "Common law"
rights are vague and situational; that's why the people insisted on a
Bill of Rights in the Constitution, spelling out exactly what they
demanded from the government.  Legitimate or illegitimate, power is
power.  That's why the federal government can force states to grant
their citizens rights they don't wish to: In a slugging match, the feds
win.  Period.

   And you're right, this doesn't belong in sci.space.  I've said my
peace.  No more frome me on rights (at least not here).

>Most gracious regards, 
>WHH 

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61358
From: u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen)
Subject: Commercials on the Moon

I have often thought about, if its possible to have a powerfull laser
on earth, to light at the Moon, and show lasergraphics at the surface
so clearly that you can see it with your eyes when there is a new
moon.

How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of
people.

Do you know if its possible?


--
Erik M. Hansen    |  Email u920496@daimi.aau.dk
Fuglsangsalle 69  |  Aarhus University
DK-8210  Erhus V  |  
Denmark, Europe   | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61359
From: rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

Ken Hayashida (khayash@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
: Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight
: to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.

: So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk
: about it; I shall.

: I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources
: to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate
: on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent 
: as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and 
: probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands
: the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence
: of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.

Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:

1.	Calculators
2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)


p.s.  To all the regular contributors to sci.space.news and
sci.space.shuttle, thanks for all your hard work keeping us informed
as to the doings down in NASA and other space-type agencies.  I don't
have much time to read USENET, but I ALWAYS read these two groups....

--
Robert E. Kaye	  Asst. Sys Admin      Surgical Information Systems
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center      Chicago,  IL   USA
Internet:  rek@siss81.rpslmc.edu   	     Voice:  (312) 942-5891 
					       FAX:  (312) 942-4228
   _____    _____    
  / ^ ^ \  / _ _ \   Support your local Community Theater Groups...! 
  | o o |  | o o |
  | \_/ |  | /-\ |   St. Marcellene's Church in Schaumburg Il. presents:
   \___/    \___/    "Meet Me in St. Louis" opening April 30th.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61360
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Astro FTP list - notes



    Hello, All!

  I apologize, I haven't published my astro FTP list since March.
  Now I haven't tested all the sites included into the list.  I
  would notified all the people, you have stored some older issues
  of my, there are now lots of changes.  Many sites have gone away:
  They either do not exist any more or all the astro stuff have
  removed.
 
  The job keep this list is very hard, so all the notes and informat-
  ion of changes, new sites, new contents etc. is welcome.

  I would thank all the net people who give me information for the
  newest version.



  					regards,

					Veikko Makela

					Computing Centre
					Univ. of Helsinki
					F I N L A N D


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61361
From: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Subject: Astro FTP list - April issue

#                     
#                        A S T R O - F T P   L I S T
#                             Updated 28.04.1993
#
# This  is  a  short  description  of  anonymous-ftp  file  servers  containing
# astronomy  and space research related material.  I have  included only  those
# servers  where  there are  special subdirectories  for  astro stuff  or  much
# material  included into  a general  directories.  This list is not a complete
# data set of possible places,  so I would be very happy of all kind of notices
# and information depending on this listing.
#
# The newest version of this file is available via anonymous-ftp as:
#
#                nic.funet.fi:/pub/astro/general/astroftp.txt
#                                       
# There are also many mirror (copy) archives  for  simtel-20.army.mil (PC)  and 
# sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mac) which are not included into this list. Only some
# of mirroring sites are listed.
#
#
#                                              Veikko Makela
#                                         Veikko.Makela@Helsinki.FI
#                                    *Computing Centre of Univ. Helsinki*
#                                      *Ursa Astronomical Association*   


# Server, IP                          # Contents                               
# Directories                                                                  
                                                                               
ames.arc.nasa.gov                     Spacecraf data and news,images,NASA data,
128.102.18.3                          Spacelink texts,VICAR software,FAQ
/pub/SPACE
     
arp.anu.edu.au                        Images
130.56.4.90
/pub/images/nasa

atari.archive.umich.edu               Atari                                    
141.211.164.8                                                                  
/atari/applications/astronomy                                                  
                                                                               
archive.afit.af.mil                   Satellite software,documents,elements
129.92.1.66
/pub/space
                                                                               
baboon.cv.nrao.edu                    AIPS document and patches,radioastronomy
192.33.115.103                        image processing,FITS test images
/pub/aips

c.scs.uiuc.edu                        ROSAT,Starchart(PC)                      
128.174.90.3                                                                   
/pub                                                                           
                                                                               
ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz                     PC
130.216.1.5
/msdos/astronomy                      (*) overseas connections refused

chara.gsu.edu                         Electronical Journal of ASA, Journal of
131.96.5.10                           ASA, SAC news
/

explorer.arc.nasa.gov                 Magellan, Viking and Voyager CDROMs
128.102.32.18
/cdrom

export.lcs.mit.edu                    XEphem distribution
18.24.0.12
/contrib/xephem

epona.physics.ucg.ie                  Some software, predictions, images,
140.203.1.3                           FITS info, miscellaneous
/pub/astro
/pub/space
/pub/fits

fits.cv.nrao.edu                      FITS documents, OS support, sample data,
192.33.115.8                          test files, sci.astro.fits archive
/FITS
                                                                               
ftp.cicb.fr                           Images
129.20.128.27
/pub/Images/ASTRO

ftp.cco.caltech.edu                   Astronomy magazine index 1991                                         
131.215.48.200                                                                 
/pub/misc                                                                      
                                                                               
ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de                   PC,Amiga,Mac,Unix,images,general
130.149.17.7
/pub/astro

ftp.funet.fi                          PC,Mac,CP/M,Atari,Amiga,databases,Unix,
128.214.6.100                         HP48,OS/2,texts,News,solar reports,images,
/pub/astro                            Satellite elements,FAQ
                                                                               
ftp.uni-kl.de                         iauc,Vista image reduction,asteroids
131.246.9.95
/pub/astro

garbo.uwasa.fi                        PC
128.214.87.1
/pc/astronomy                                                                  
                                                                               
gipsy.vmars.tuwien.ac.at              images
128.130.39.16
/pub/spacegifs

hanauma.stanford.edu                  Unix, satellite program, images
36.51.0.16                                                                      
/pub/astro                                                                     
/pub/astropix

hysky1.stmarys.ca                     ECU distribution
140.184.1.1
/pcstuff

idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov                IDL routines 
128.183.57.82
/
                                                                               
iraf.noao.edu                         IRAF Software                            
140.252.1.1                                                                    
/iraf                                                                          
                                                                               
julius.cs.qub.ac.uk                   Space Digest
143.117.5.6
/pub/SpaceDigestArchive

rata.vuw.ac.nz                        Astrophysical software
130.195.2.11
/pub/astrophys                                                                 
                                                                               
kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov                   Satellite elements,spacecraft info
128.149.1.165
/pub/space

ns3.hq.eso.org                        Test images, Standards
134.171.11.4
/pub/testimages
/pub/standards

nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov                  HST,IUE,Astro-1,NSSDCA info,Spacewarn,
128.183.36.23                         FITS standard                       
/                                                                         
                                                                               
plaza.aarnet.edu.au                   images,docs,Magellan
139.130.4.6
/graphics/graphics/astro
/magellan

pomona.claremont.edu                  Yale Bright Star Catalog
134.173.4.160
/YALE_BSC

pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov                  JPL news, status reports, images
128.149.6.2
/

ra.nrl.navy.mil                       Mac
128.60.0.21
/MacSciTech/astro

rascal.ics.utexas.edu                 Mac                                      
128.83.138.20
/mac                                                                           
                                                                               
rigel.acs.oakland.edu                 PC
141.210.10.117
/pub/msdos/astronomy

rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de           Atari                                    
129.69.1.12                                                                    
/soft/atari/applications/astronomy                                             
                                                                               
simtel20.army.mil                     PC,CP/M                                  
192.88.110.20
/msdos/educ                                                                    
/cpm                                                                           
                                                                               
sol.deakin.oz.au                      garbo.uwasa.fi c.                        
128.184.1.1                                                                    
/pub/PC/chyde/astronomy                                                        
                                                                               
solbourne.solbourne.com               some PC programs
141.138.2.2
/pub/rp/as-is/astro

stardent.arc.nasa.gov                 Martian map                              
128.102.21.44                                                                  
/pub                                                                           
                                                                               
stsci.edu                             HSTMap(Mac),HST info                                       
130.167.1.2                                                                    
/Software                                                                      
                                                                               
sumex.stanford.edu                    Mac                                      
36.44.0.6                                                                      
/info-mac/app                                                                  
                                                                               
sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de            PC,misc
129.206.100.126
/pub/msdos/astronomy

techreports.larc.nasa.gov             NASA Langley technical reports
128.155.3.58
/pub/techreports/larc

tetra.gsfc.nasa.gov                   FITSIO subroutines                             
128.183.8.77                                                                   
/pub
                                                                               
unbmvs1.csd.unb.ca                    Space geodesy,solar activity info
131.202.1.2
pub.canspace

vmd.cso.uiuc.edu                      Weather satellite images
128.174.5.98
/wx

world.std.com                         PC; source codes
192.74.137.5
/pub/astronomy

xi.uleth.ca                           Solar reports,auroral activity forecast
142.66.3.29                           maps,solar images,x-ray plot,coronal
/pub/solar                            emission plots

# Some abbreviations:
#
#   c = copy (mirror) of other archive




# -----
# My other e-communication projects:
# * E-mail contact addresses of interest groups in amateur astronomy
# * European astronomy and space-related bulletin boards
# * E-mail catalogue of Finnish amateur astronomers

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61362
From: bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>with that much weight in the payload.

Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

bd
-- 
Brian Day                                       bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov
New Technology, Inc.                            (205) 461-4584
Mission Software Development Division           Opinions are my own -

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61363
From: dempsey@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1993Apr28.132251.1@stsci.edu>, zellner@stsci.edu writes:
> 
> I have never heard of any serious consideration that HST might be brought 
> down for refurbishment.  You would have the horrendous cost of transporting,

Back in January and February there were several articles (Wash Post, Time...)
saying that NASA was "considering" the option just as it is now "considering"
a followup mission 6-12 months after the servicing mission.  However, the
down time was estimated to be a year+ (servicing, checkout, sceheduling
and training another shuttle, orbit verification...) and to be quite
expensive.  I think it may have been more a mental exercise than a
real plan.  Don't know.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dempsey                                 (410) 338-1334
STScI/PODPS                                                                   

"He which hath no stomach for this fight, Let him depart; his passport
shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse: We would not die
in this man's company that fears his fellowship to die with us." -Shakespeare
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61364
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1rls95$9aj@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
> |I say:
> |What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
> |would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
> |at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
> |would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
> 
> 
> Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to
> sci.space.aesthetics.
> 
> Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
> ruin the night sky.  
> 
> Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
> include onobstructed air space.
> 
> 

Hokay - I am hereby voting my backyard to be a sanctuary - one acre 
where I can object to anything I do not like for aesthetic reasons. 
<::-)  What a relief to know we both can be happy. 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61365
From: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Subject: Re: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)

In article <pgf.735953163@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>
>>In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>
>>   [re: voyages of discovery...]
>>   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?
>
Much of Cook's later exploration was privately funded, by Joseph Banks
among others (eg in Resolution & the earlier Endeavour).  Colnett's voyage
to the Galapagos was substantially privately funded by the owners of
British whaling vessels.  Chancellor and Willoughby were privately funded
by London merchant companies in their voyages to Muscovy.  The list is
almost endless.  Those doing the funding were about eighty percent
motivated by potential profit, ten percent by potential glory and ten
percent by the desire to advance the sum of human knowledge.

--
Dan Newman
Aeronautical Engineering
University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2050
AUSTRALIA
From: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Path: key3.ae.su.oz.au!dan
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: 
Expires: 
References: 
Sender: 
Reply-To: dan@key3.ae.su.oz.au (Daniel M. Newman)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Aeronautical Engineering, Sydney University
Keywords: 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61366
From: daveka@microsoft.com (Dave Kappl)
Subject: Re: Abyss--breathing fluids

In article <1r8esd$lrh@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Are breathable liquids possible?
> 
> I remember seeing an old Nova or The Nature of Things where this idea was
> touched upon (it might have been some other TV show).  If nothing else, I know
> such liquids ARE possible because...
> 
> They showed a large glass full of this liquid, and put a white mouse (rat?) in
> it.  Since the liquid was not dense, the mouse would float, so it was held down
> by tongs clutching its tail.  The thing struggled quite a bit, but it was
> certainly held down long enough so that it was breathing the liquid.  It never
> did slow down in its frantic attempts to swim to the top.
> 
> Now, this may not have been the most humane of demonstrations, but it certainly
> shows breathable liquids can be made.
> -- 
> *Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
> *					* _____/_o_\_____
> *	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
> *	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

This was on "That's Incredible" several years ago.  The volume of liquid
the rat had to breath was considerably smaller than what a human would have
to breath, so maybe it is possible for a rat but not a human.

DaveTheRave

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61367
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: I want that Billion

In article <C663u5.IKC@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>... C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this
>>or that... 
>
>Sure, you can get a heavylift launcher fairly cheap if you do it privately
>rather than as a gummint project.  But we're still talking about something
>that will cost nine digits per launch, unless you can guarantee a large
>market to justify volume production.

"Let's make a deal!"  If you're going to put up a billion, I'd want to budget
the whole sheebang for $450-600 million.  If I have that much money to throw
around in the first place, you betcha I'm going to sign a contract committing
to volume production...



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61368
From: u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Subject: Political banner in space

I propose that PepsiCo, Mcdonalds and other companies could put 
into orbit banners that have timely political messages, such as,

     "Stop the slaughter in Bosnia!"

, etc.

-rabjab

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61369
From: binglis@health.ufl.edu (binglis)
Subject: test (please ignore)





Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61370
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

First, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote:
: : I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
: : one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
: : Crystal City.  [...]

Second, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (me again) wrote:
: I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
: You can retrieve them from:
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif
:   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif

: The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing
: charts.

: These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days,
: so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took
: me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
: but it's out of space.

But now I need to clarify the situation.  The "/incoming" directory on
ics.uci.edu does NOT allow you to do an "ls" command.  The files are
there (I just checked on 04/28/93 at 9:35 CDT), and you can "get" them
(don't forget the "binary" mode!), but you can't "ls" in the
"/incoming" directory.

A further update: Mark's design made the cover of Space News this week
as one of the design alternatives which was rejected.  But he's still
in there plugging.  I wish him luck -- using ET's as the basis of a
Space Station has been a good idea for a long time.

May the best design win.

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

     "Good ideas are not adopted automatically.  They must be driven into
       practice with courageous impatience." -- Admiral Hyman G. Rickover

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61371
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: The Dream Machines: book on vaporware spacecraft

Ron Miller is a space artist with a long and distinguished career.  
I've admired both his paintings (remember the USPS Solar System
Exploration Stamps last year?) and his writings on the history of
spaceflight.  For several years he's been working on a *big* project
which is almost ready to hit the streets.  A brochure from his
publisher has landed in my mailbox, and I thought it was cool enough
to type in part of it (it's rather long).  Especially given the Net's
strong interest in vaporware spacecraft...

                 ==================================

                         The Dream Machines:
An Illustrated History of the Spaceship in Art, Science, and Literature

                            By Ron Miller
                  with Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke

Krieger Publishing Company
Melbourne, Florida, USA
Orig. Ed. 1993
Pre-publication $84.50
ISBN 0-89464-039-9


This text is a history of the spaceship as both a cultural and a
technological phenomenon.  The idea of a vehicle for traversing the
space betwen worlds did not spring full-blown into existence in the
tlatter half of theis century.  The need preceded the ability ot make
such a device by several hundred years.  As soon as it was realized
that there were other worlds than this one, human beings wanted to
reach them.   

Tracing the history of the many imaginative, and often prescient,
attempts to solve this problem also reflects the history of
technology, science, astronomy, and engineering.  Once space travel
became feasible, there were many more spacecraft concepts developed
than ever got off the drawing board-- or off the ground, for that
matter.  These also are described in theis book, for the same reason
as the pre-space-age and pre-flight ideas are:  they are all accurate
reflections of their particular era's dreams, abilities, and
knowledge.  Virtually every spaceship concept invented since 1500, as
well as selected events important in developing the idea of
extraterrestrial travel, is listed chronologically.  The chronological
entries allow comparisons between actual astronautical events and
speculative ventures.  They also allow comparisons between
simultaneous events taking place in different countries.  They reveal
connections, influences, and evolutions hitherto unsuspected.  Every
entry is accompanied by at least one illustration.  Nearly every
spacecraft concept is illustrated with a schematic drawing.  This
allows accurate comparisons to be made between designss, to visualize
differences, similarities, and influences.

This text will be of interest to students of astronautical history,
and also to model builders who would be interested in the schematic
diagrams.   Science fiction fans as well as aviation history buffs and
historians of science will also find this book to be fascinating.  The
unique collection of illustrations makes it a visually attractive and
very interesting history of the spaceship.

SPECIAL FEATURES

Includes scale drawings of several hundred spacecraft, both real and
fictional

Contains scores of illustrations: artwork, drawings, and photos
contemporary with the subject.  This includes extremely rare
illustrations from scarce books and novels, exclusive photos and
drawings fromSoviet spacecraft; rare stills from both famous and
obscure science fiction films, and unpublished photographs from NASA
archives

An index, bibliography, and appendices are included.

CONTENTS

Part I  The Archaeology of the Spaceship (360 B.C. to 1783 A.D.)
Part II The invention of the Spaceship (1784-1899)
Part III The Experimenters (1900-1938)
Part IV The World War (1939-1945)
Part V  The Golden Age of the Spaceship (1946-1960)
Part VI The Dawn of the Space Age (1961 to the present)

ABOUT RON MILLER

[The brochure has a page of stuff here; I'll try to hit the high
spots.]

Former art director for Albert Einstein Planetarium  at Smithsonian's
National Air and Space Museum

Member of International Association for Astronomical Arts, member of
International Astronautical Association, Fellow of the British
Interplanetary Society,  consulting editor for *Air & Space
Smithsonian* magazine

Author, co-author, editor, or sole illustrator on many books since
1979, including *Space Art*, *Cycles of Fire*, *The Grand Tour*, and
many others, as well as many articles and papers

Book jackets and interior art for over a dozen publishers 

Contributor to IBM traveling exhibition and book *Blueprint for Space*

Production illustrator for movies *Dune* and *Total Recall*

Designer of ten-stamp set of commemorative space postage stamps for
U.S. Postal Service in 1991 (Solar System Exploration)

ORDERING INFORMATION

Pre-publication price $84.50 before 1 May 1993
Afterwards, price will be $112.50

Krieger Publishing Company
PO Box 9542
Melbourne, FL 32902-9542
USA
Direct order line (407)727-7270
Fax (407)951-3671

Add $5.00 for shipping by UPS within USA for first book, $1.50 for each
additional book.  

For foreign orders, add $6.00 for first book, $2.00 for each
additional.  Additional charges for airmail shipments.

     O~~*         /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                        (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |   Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /   Bitnet:                          HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -     Internet:                      HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~       SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet:                  43011::HIGGINS

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61372
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: DC-X news

Static test firings are now scheduled for this Saturday.....after many
schedule changes.....

It may be difficult to get test status during the next two weeks....the
number of contacts are drying up as they all go to New Mexico......GO DELTA
CLIPPER!!

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61373
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

>>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...

> In one of his lesser known books (I can't
> remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
> travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon...

  That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to
get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for
TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200
collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern
times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or
so to get a copy.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@butch.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
 N5WVR           <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61374
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <C66E1G.KM9@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>> ...the temperature of the (night) sky as seen from space?
>     You'll find that in Allen, C.W., "Astrophysical Quantities", Athlone
>Press, Dover, NH, 3rd edition, pp. 268-269 (1973)...

#@$#%$!!  I *have* a copy of Allen, and it never occurred to me to look
in there...  I must be getting old...  I'll look it up when I get home.
Thanks.

>... the temperature is 3 degrees K.

I'd remembered a rather higher number, but that may have been for the
lunar nearside, where the Earth is a significant heat source.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61375
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU> richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:
>   Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
>in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
>what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
>radiation field?"

Basically the right question, although I was interested in cases closer
to home where the Sun is behind either a natural object or effective
shielding.

>   If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
>molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
>from being blackbodies...
>   Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
>from place to place...

Good point (and thanks for the references).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61376
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU>, richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU
(Stupendous Man) writes: 

>  (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>> (night) sky as seen from space?
>>
> 
>    Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody
> in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'),
> what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient
> radiation field?"
> 
>    If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
> molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
> from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
> and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
> can range from 40K to 150K.  

Yes, but that's because interstellar grains are very poor radiators, not
remotely black bodies.  As a consequence they are a lot warmer than the
"ambient".
 
>    Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit
> from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association,
> I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so 
> varied.
> 

When I was in graduate school, a long time ago, we used 10,000 deg K with
a DILUTION FACTOR of 10+4 for representative values of the radiant energy
background in the galaxy due to starlight.  

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61377
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
>the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites.
>THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
>pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it,
>and 1 alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that.  The *total mass* of the
Pluto Fast Flyby spacecraft is only 250ish pounds, and most of that is
support equipment like power and communications.  The mass available for
instruments is maybe 10% of that.  I don't think a BATSE will fit...

Actually, would you need the shielding?  My understanding is that it's
mostly there to give the detectors some directionality.  No point in
doing that if you've only got one.  I'm sure the burst detectors that
have flown on other deep-space missions haven't weighed that much.
(Mind you, they're probably still too heavy -- the PFF people would put
more Pluto-specific instruments on first, if they had any mass to spare.)
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61378
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>|much energy in one second? 
>>                                                -jeremy

>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.

It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
in the interstellar medium.)

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61379
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr28.150719.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes...
> 
>  That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to
>get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for
>TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200
>collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern
>times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or
>so to get a copy.

I too am a Jules Verne collector, and can tell you that though tough 
to find, it *is* out there.  I keep my eyes open all the time for his
books at various Bay Area used book stores, and every once in a while
get *very* lucky.  You just need diligence.  I don't know if the book
store situation near JSC is as good as the Bay Area, but good luck.
I have also had excellent luck at the Antiquarian Book Fair which comes
to SF every other year, though the prices are more in the $100-$200 range
than the $50 you want to spend.  My guess is that *if* you find it,
you won't need to spend even that much, since most people don't care 
about it.  I think I paid about $15 for my dust-jacket-less but otherwise
good condition copy, which I found one day at a small bookshop that happened
to have just bought a lot of random books at an estate sale.  

Of course, if you re willing to buy blind, you can put a $2 advertisement
in the Antiquarian Bookseller's newsletter (the exact title of which escapes
me at the moment.)  _Five Weeks in a Balloon_ is not the rarest of Jules
Verne books.  Someone has it for sale somewhere, and the AB is the way to 
find it.  In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't get multiple offers
of sale.  Of course, that takes the fun out of hunting for it yourself...

Good luck.

-Scott
--------------------                          New .sig under construction
Scott I. Chase                                     Please be patient
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                                   Thank you 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61380
From: jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?


 I understand the when one is in orbit, the inward force of gravity at
one's center of mass is exactly balanced by the outward centrifugal
force from the orbiting motion, resulting in weightlessness.

 I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
there a constant sensation of falling? And what is the motion sickness
that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

 Please reply only if you are either a former or current astronaut, or 
someone who has had this discussion first-hand with an astronaut. 
Thanks!

-- 
Jerry Liebelson
jlieb@is.morgan.com
73477.2740@compuserve.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61381
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>,
bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes: 
> rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
> 
>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.
> 
> Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???
> 

I hate to belabor the obvious once again, but if there had been an Orbiter
emergency in the early stages of the original HST deployment mission, they
would have HAD to land with HST in the bay. 

Indeed they were worried about that.  One concern was the possibility that
they would lose a motor or something on the way up, and make orbit but one
that was too low to give HST a useful lifetime against atmospheric drag.  
I believe the decision was to deploy HST even if the projected lifetime was
as short as six months.  In fact we got an excellent orbit, on the upper
envelope of what the Shuttle can do.

I have never heard of any serious consideration that HST might be brought 
down for refurbishment.  You would have the horrendous cost of transporting,
cleaning, re-testing, and re-certifying all the hardware on the ground, in
addition to the lost observing time and the cost of a second deployment 
mission with the risks that we might not get such a good orbit the second 
time.  And, you would probably STILL need a (third) servicing mission in a 
few years as gyros and other components wear out.  Better to have two 
servicing missions in space (which could well happen) than to bring HST down 
and take it up again.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61382
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:

>rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:

>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.

>Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

I can't speak to sheer mass, but part of the problem is that HST
wasn't built to ever be brought back down.  It's not built for those
kinds of 'jolt' forces and there is no support cradle for it (which is
additional weight that would be required.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61383
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <C65FIE.4ty@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
writes in response to Michael Adams post:
>>I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the
>>discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and
>>such..- Adams
>
>Why bother with a new newsgroup?  If you want to discuss the subject,
>*start discussing it*.  If there is enough traffic to annoy the rest of
>us, we will let you know... and *then* it will be time for a new newsgroup.

Well, here goes.

The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
or even curious about spaceflight.  I think that this forum can
make a major change in that lack of insight and education.

All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
term human habitation in space.

I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to 
succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight.  Such a detailed
literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
and clearly important to existing space programs.

In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
and any other source!

I'm eager to hear your comments and see posts on this thread.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61384
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>...
>4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
>we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

We can only say that they are beyond about 25 AU, due to the low
accuracy of position determination by single detectors.

>what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.
>Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.   
>Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.
>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
>just a little speculative thinking folks.

It may be a NEW Physics problem (i.e. a problem involving new
physics).  However, the data is not good enough to rule out the >100
models which use old physics.  New physics is a big step, and is only
tolerated when there is no alternative.  For example , the Dark Matter
Problem (there's more to the universe than meets the eye) is a question
of comparable mystery to GRBs, but we have much better data regarding
it.  Theoreticians postulate new particles all the time to explain it,
but no one will actually believe that these particles are real until an
experimentalist (or several) detects them in the lab.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61385
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: HyperKnowledge

In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes...
> 
> 
>ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP
> 
>Motivation
> 
>We are a heterogeneous group of scientists and students who feel that our  
>work is continuously hindered by computer environments dominated by  
>incompatible scientific tools and monstrous software packages (too often  
>claiming to do everything).  

>What we need is an object-oriented scientific environment where the tools  
>we choose to use are integrated without being parts of a closed system,  
>highly interactive, and extendable (both by the addition of our own  
>specialized objects and by combining the available tools - graphically).   
>The use of such an environment should be a natural extension of our work,  
>requiring a very short learning phase and practically no  
>user-documentation.  


I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to
answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these
people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today.

It is called labview by National Instruments.  IT is a wonderful object
oriented graphical programming language.  IT has been implemented on
both Mac's PC's and VME unix boxes.  IT is fare superior to any programming
approach that I have ever seen and allowed us to decrease the software
development time for our shuttle payloads by 90 percent.  This program is
not dependendant on specific hardware and already has exensive analysis 
capability.

Why re-invent the wheel on a platform that may not exist? It is a great
idea but look out there at what is available today.  The Hydrogen leak on
the Shuttle was found using this software. All SSME control and simulation
studies, along with the real testing at MSFC is handled with LabVIEW.  There
are tons of applications, with the ability to create "virtual" instruments
that can accomplish any specific custom task the maker desires.  With the
addition of IEEE-488 support, the computer becomes a virtual control station,
allowing the graphic representation of remote instrumentation. With serial
I/O support that instrument can be anywhere.  The ground control software
for the main control of SEDSAT 1 will utilize this approach.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61386
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <1rlrpv$5ta@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
> 

>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
>just a little speculative thinking folks.
> 
>pat


Well pat for once I agree with you and I like your first idea that you had.
IT probably is the gamma ray signature of the warp transitions of interstellar
spacecraft! :)

Well it makes as much sense as some things. I was at the first Gamma Ray
Burst conference here at UAH and had great fun watching the discomfiture
of many of the Gamma Ray scientists. Much scruitiny was given to the
data reductions. I remember one person in particular who passionately declared
that the data was completely wrong as there were no explanation for the
phenomena of the smooth sky distribution. (heck it even shoots down the
warp transition theory :(. The next conference is soon and I will endeavour
to keep in touch with this fun subject.

Dennis

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61387
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Political banner in space

u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO) writes:

>I propose that PepsiCo, Mcdonalds and other companies could put 
>into orbit banners that have timely political messages, such as,

>     "Stop the slaughter in Bosnia!"

Or how about:
    "End light pollution now!!"

Your banner would have no effect on its subject, but my banner would.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61388
From: jecurt01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (John E. Curtis)
Subject: space surveillance

  One of the main reasons nations like the US and RUSSIA observe satellite
  that have been launched is FORBs system whick loft nuclear bombs into
  orbit which are planned to be detonated in LEO causing EMP pulses
  interfering with the target command and control system.

					     

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61389
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:

>Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge
>of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can
>determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge
>of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments
>give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's 
>any help.

But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.
Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors
and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have
any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to
determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small 
component to the positional error.  

Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).
If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to 
have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline.

The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and
watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination
when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from.

-Kevin

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61390
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In <1993Apr29.114622.1@arc.ug.eds.com> steveg@arc.ug.eds.com writes:

>In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

>>>
>>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
>> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
>> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.
>> 

>This is the high-school science version; the original Rand study by
>Stephen H Dole "Planets for Man" gives the harder numbers & graphs &
>such (but predates Michael Hart's (& later) work on continuously 
>habitable zones)

Is this still in print or available (other than on loan)?  I remember
reading this many years ago and it's still the best thing I remember
in this vein.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61391
From: gbt@cray.com (Greg Titus)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?

I'm not sure if this is a big issue, but it seems to me like it
might be -- up till now, all >1g forces applied to the mirror and
its mounting (and nearly all =1g forces) have been applied along the
telescope's optical axis, and against the mirror's base.  Reentry
would apply forces along roughly the same axis, but tending to pull
the mirror away from the mount, and the landing would apply on-edge
forces to both the mirror and mount.  It could be that one or both
of these would not survive.

greg
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)                   Compiler Group
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61392
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.

Obviously not.  Count rates are too low and signal rise times too long
for this to be possible.  The CGRO, is, what, 10 meters long?  You'd
need to time to an accuracy of nanoseconds to do this.

What BATSE actually does is measure the relative strength in each of
the detectors (also as a function of photon energy).  Each of the
detectors does not have isotropic response.  To do this right one must
model the scattering of photons in the material around each detector,
and even scattering of photons off the Earth's atmosphere back onto
the spacecraft.  I believe they have now reduced the error to about 2
degrees.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61393
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?

In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes...
> I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
>there a constant sensation of falling? 

Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first,
but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that
of sky diving.

>And what is the motion sickness
>that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

It is the body's reaction to a strange environment.  It appears to be induced
partly to physical discomfort and part to mental distress.  Some people are 
more prone to it than others, like some people are more prone to get sick 
on a roller coaster ride than others.  The mental part is usually induced by 
a lack of clear indication of which way is up or down, ie: the Shuttle is 
normally oriented with its cargo bay pointed towards Earth, so the Earth 
(or ground) is "above" the head of the astronauts.  About 50% of the astronauts 
experience some form of motion sickness, and NASA has done numerous tests in 
space to try to see how to keep the number of occurances down.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61394
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking
>>the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites.
>>THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200
>>pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it,
>>and 1 alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.

>Actually, the situation is even worse than that.  The *total mass* of the
>Pluto Fast Flyby spacecraft is only 250ish pounds, and most of that is
>support equipment like power and communications.  The mass available for
>instruments is maybe 10% of that.  I don't think a BATSE will fit...

From the Pluto Fast Flyby Instrument definition research anouncemnet,
the instrument payload constraints are:
    Mass allocation -  7 kilograms (15.4 lbs)
    Power allocation - 6 watts
    Required instruments:
	Visible imaging system (1024x1024 CCD, 750 mm fl, f/10 optics)
	IR mapping spectrometer (256x256 HgCdTe array, 0.3% energy resolution)
	UV spectrometer (55-200 nm, 0.5 nm resolution)
	Radio science (ultrastable oscilator incorporated in telecom system)
		ultrastable means 10^-14.

This doesn't leave much room for payloads which are totally unrelated
to the  mission of the spacecraft.  In addition, the power will come
from a radioisotope thermal generator, and the whole space craft will
be about 2 feet in diameter, with no booms, which means there will be
strong gamma-lines from Pu-239 and associated schmutz in the
background, which tends to reduce sensitivity somewhat.

It would still be nice, and our group here at Goddard is looking
in to it.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61395
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?

kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:

>Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would 
>require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort 
>cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together 
>now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object 
>that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).

According to my *Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics*:
"parsec (abbreviation for parallax second) 	The distance at which
one astronomical unit subtends an angle of 1 second of arc.  1 pc =
206,265 AU = 3.086 X 10^13 km = 3.26 lt-yr."

George
-- 
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  | 
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferfish Observatory          <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61396
From: rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days


In article <1993Apr28.171915.5013@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:
|> 
|> >rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
|> 
|> >>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
|> >>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
|> >>with that much weight in the payload.
|> 
|> >Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???
|> 
|> I can't speak to sheer mass, but part of the problem is that HST
|> wasn't built to ever be brought back down.  It's not built for those
|> kinds of 'jolt' forces and there is no support cradle for it (which is
|> additional weight that would be required.

Just to throw it out there:  The mass of the telescope is 11,600 kg 
(25,500 lb).  I do not know what Space lab weighs, but I believe it is
less.  Can anyone verify??

Also, remember that weight was not the only concern, as many others have 
noted, just one possible concern.  I was responding to a statement that
if you can boost it, why can't you land it.  Those are too different
problems.

ROB
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |
| Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     |
===========================================================================

Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course 
	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines. 
	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful
	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
-- 
===========================================================================
| Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     |
| AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA |
| Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61397
From: bell@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301)513-1663)
Subject: Displaying compressed Voyager images on a Mac


	Sorry, I've lost track of who asked the question originally 
	(our news server at GSFC keeps things around for tremendously
	short periods of time), but wanted to be certain before I
	replied. Someone asked about displaying the compressed images
	from the Voyager imaging CD-ROMs on a Mac. As Peter Ford (MIT)
	pointed out, a decompression program is available via FTP.
	(Sorry, I don't remember the name of the node offhand, 
	although it's .mit.edu.) In any case, though, one of the MAC
	display programs (CD ROM Browser by Dana Swift) does display
	the compressed images directly. The program is shareware and
	is distributed by NSSDC for nominal reproduction costs ($9 +
	shipping, if memory serves). This does *not* cover the
	shareware price which should go to Dana for his diligent work
	and upgrades, however.

	To request current pricing information, information about
	available display software, catalogs, or data from NSSDC,
	contact our user support office at:

		National Space Science Data Center
		Coordinated Request and User Support Office (CRUSO)
		Mail Code 633
		NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
		Greenbelt, MD   20771
		Phone: (301) 286-6695
		Fax:   (301) 286-4952

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II	|  E-mail:				       |
|  Mail Code 633.9		|	(SPAN) NCF::Bell		       |
|  National Space Science	|	or   NSSDC::Bell		       |
|    Data Center		|	or  NSSDCA::Bell		       |
|  NASA				|	or  NSSDCB::Bell		       |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center	|   (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771	|					       |
|  (301) 513-1663		|					       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61398
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Exploration Lecture

     The AIAA San Gabriel Valley Section is sponsoring the following lecture
on Mars exploration at the Jet Propulsion Lab.  Admission is free and open to
the public.

                           The Next Frontier:
                    The Challenge of Mars Exploration

                      DATE:     May 6, 1993
                      TIME:     6:00PM - 8:30 PM
                      LOCATION: Von Karman Auditorium
                                Jet Propulsion Lab
                                4800 Oak Grove Drive
                                Pasadena, California

     The following five speakers will be featured:

              A Science Fiction Perspective
              Tom McDonaugh
              Science Fiction Writer

               Mars Observer
               Dr. Arden Albee
               Project Scientist, Mars Observer - JPL

               Mars '94
               Dr. Arthur L. Lane
               Instrument Manager, Mars '94 - JPL

               Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)
               Richard Cook
               Mission Designer - JPL

               Manned Mission to Mars
               Dr. Robert Zubrin
               Senior Engineer, Martin Marietta Astronautics

     For more information, contact AIAA at 800-683-2422 or Mark Leon at
310-332-1098.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61399
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up

That has sort of happened for real. Back in the 1920's travellers
in the Sudan would find strange cigar shaped designs on native huts.
When asked the locals would say it was a picture of the great omen
that appeared in the sky. This was LZ 53 a zepplin flying from Bulgaria
to German East Africa with supplies in 1917 (and back since it was fooled
by the British secret service.)
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61400
From: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
> >1.	Calculators
> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
> 
> I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
> many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
> I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
> a good thing.
> 
> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
> and of itself.

I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is
inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it
cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether
something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become
increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!). 
They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want
something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.

I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
existence of the space program relies upon that money.

just my $.02

BTW: don't forget Velcro...

bcnu - John Gladu
Systems Support Center -- Baylor College of Medicine
INTERNET: jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu  | VOICE: (713)798-7370
 US MAIL:  One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas  77030
.opinions expressed are just that.obviously.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61401
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <STEINLY.93Apr27121443@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   _The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
   no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
   to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
   "conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
   by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
   least it was a good try...

So you have a plausible model for GRB's at astronomical distances?
Recent observations have just about ruled out the merging neutron star
hypothesis, which had a lot of problems, anyhow.  We have to look for
implausible models and what is fundamentally allowed independent of
models.

A paper on the possibility of GRB's in the Oort cloud just came
through the astrophysics abstract service.  To get a copy of this
paper, send a message to astro-ph@babbage.sissa.it with the subject
line 
  get 9304001


Here is the abstract of that paper.

   The currently favored explanation for the origin of \GRBs puts them
   at cosmological distances;
   but as long as there is no distance
   indicator to these events all possible sources which are
   isotropically distributed should remain under consideration. This is
   why the Oort cloud of comets is kept on the list,
   although there is no known mechanism for generating \GRBs
   from cometary nuclei. Unlikely as it may seem, the possibility that \GRBs
   originate in the solar cometary cloud
   cannot be excluded until it is disproved.

   We use the available data on the distribution of \GRBs (the BATSE
   catalogue up to March, 1992), and
   the Catalogue of Cometary Orbits  by Marsden and Williams (1992) to
   investigate whether there is any observational indication for correlations
   between the angular distributions of \GRBs and comets' aphelia,
   assuming that the distribution of aphelia direction reflect,
   at least to some extent, true variations
   in the column density of the Oort cloud. We also apply the $\vov$
   test to both distributions.

   We have  performed a variety of statistical tests (a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
   test for the distributions in galactic latitude, a
   $\chi^2$ test for the spherical multiple moments, and a 2-D
   cross-correlation analysis), including testing sub-samples for
   isolating the effect of possible observational biases.
   These tests imply that it is unlikely that the two distributions agree, but
   the statistical significance  is not sufficient for ruling out any
   connection with complete confidence. We performed Monte-Carlo simulations
   which show that only when the number of bursts exceeds $\sim 800$
   it is possible to rule out a correlation between the angular distributions.
   Currently,
    it is only the combination of these tests  with the large disagreement
   found for the $\vov$ parameter which makes the Oort
   cloud of comets unlikely to be related to \GRBs.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61402
From: Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <26APR199310105388@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>>....
>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
>> 
>>Seen that movie already...
>
>Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not
>_The Gods Must Be Crazy._...

My comment was off the top of my head; I wasn't aware that it had
already been thought of.  Guess it's true that there's nothing new under
the sun (or in this case, the flying billboards.)


--

Jeff Cook                                  Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61403
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93117.91666666  .00044808  00000-0  13489-3 0    63
2 22640  28.4614 259.3429 0005169 259.6342  61.8074 15.90673799   201
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61404
From: moses@pan.arc.nasa.gov (julie moses)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

>> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own
>> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the
>> (night) sky as seen from space?
>>
>> Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background
>> Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm
>> after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see,
>> disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects.
>
>
I'm not sure if this will help you, but the (local) interstellar
radiation field has been measured and modeled by various groups.  If I
remember things correctly, the models involved contributions from three
different BB sources, so there's no obvious "temperature" of background
radiation in our local area.  However, the following references give the
interstellar radiation density as a function of wavelength, and you can
integrate and average in an appropriate manner to get an "effective"
temperature if you like:

Witt and Johnson (1973) Astrophys. J. 181, 363 - 368
Henry et al. (1980) Astrophys. J. 239, 859 - 866
Mathis et al. (1983) Astron. Astrophys. 128, 212 - 229

As you can see, the references are out of date, but they might get you
started.

Hope this helps,

					Julie

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61405
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

In article <ETHANB.93Apr28135146@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.93Apr27121443@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

      _The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
      no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
      to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
      "conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
      by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
      least it was a good try...

   So you have a plausible model for GRB's at astronomical distances?

I don't have any plausible models for GRBs at any distances ;-)

   Recent observations have just about ruled out the merging neutron star
   hypothesis, which had a lot of problems, anyhow.  We have to look for
   implausible models and what is fundamentally allowed independent of
   models.

Hmm, the "superbowl" burst has been claimed in press releases
to cast doubt on the merging NS hypothesis, from what I've read
(and I haven't seen the papers, only the press) I'd say it is
consistent with some of the merging NS models

   A paper on the possibility of GRB's in the Oort cloud just came
   through the astrophysics abstract service.  To get a copy of this

   Here is the abstract of that paper.

 ...
      indicator to these events all possible sources which are
      isotropically distributed should remain under consideration. This is
      why the Oort cloud of comets is kept on the list,
      although there is no known mechanism for generating \GRBs
      from cometary nuclei. Unlikely as it may seem, the possibility that \GRBs
      originate in the solar cometary cloud
      cannot be excluded until it is disproved.

This does not propose a _mechanism_ for GRBs in the Oort (and, no,
anti-matter annihilation does not fit the spectra at least as far
as I understand annihilation spectra...). Big difference.
That's ignoring the question of how you fit a distribution
to the Oort distribution when the Oort distribution is not well
known - in particular comet aphelia (which are not well known)
are not a good measure of the Oort cloud distribution...


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61406
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

I personally prefer natural skies, far from city lights and sans aircraft.  
However, there is also something to be said for being able to look up into the
sky and see a satellite.  Many people get a real kick out of it, especially if
they haven't seen one before.   
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61407
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/28/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                     MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                           April 28, 1993
                            12:40 PM PDT

Flight Sequence C9 is active as of 00:11 AM, Tuesday, April 27.  With
activities beginning at shortly before 5:00 AM yesterday, C9 commanded
the spacecraft to execute a series of slews and rolls to provide the MAG
(Magnetometer) Team data points in varying spacecraft attitudes and
orientations for the purpose of better characterizing the
spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument.

The spacecraft was commanded back to Sun Star Init state at 9:07 AM to
re-establish Inertial Reference.  Transition back to Array Normal Spin
began at 11:17 AM, after which the sequence powered on the on-board
transmitter at 11:18 AM.  Telemetry reacquisition occurred at
approximately 11:30 AM at the 4 KBS Science and Engineering downlink
data rate on the High Gain Antenna.  Subsystem engineers report that all
systems appear to be nominal.  The command to terminate using the Low
Gain Antenna for uplink was sent at 12:31 PM.  Uplink and Downlink are
currently via the HGA.

MAG Calibration data has been recorded on Digital Tape Recorders 2 and 3.
Playback of DTR 2 is scheduled to take place tomorrow morning between
8:11 AM and 12:42 PM.  Playback of DTR 3 is scheduled to take place
tomorrow evening beginning at 11:57 PM and ending at 4:28 AM on Friday.
DTR playback will be performed via the High Gain Antenna at 42,667 bits
per second.  Upon verification of successful DTR playbacks, downlink will
be maintained at the 4K S & E rate.

The MAG Cal activity timeline ends at shortly before 5:00 AM on Friday
morning.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61408
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?

>  From: harrisd@ll.mit.edu ( David Harris)
>  Message-Id: <9304271045.AA00468@LL.MIT.EDU>
>  To: Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM
>  Subject: RE: Level 5 Shuttle Software Work
>
>  Bret,
>
>  If you are familiar with the software work that received the Level 5
>  rating, could you post a description of it and/or some references?  I
>  think many people would be interested to know just what the IBM team
>  on that effort is doing differently from most other organizations/projects
>  that earned them that rating.

I am familiar with the project.  It is the Onboard Shuttle Flight
Software Project.  This software controls the Space Shuttle During
all dynamic phases as well as on-orbit.
It has ultra-high reliability and extremely
low error rates.  There have been several papers published on the
subject and I'll collect some references.  There may be an
article in the IBM Systems Journal Late '93, early '94.

There is no magic formula.  We did it with dedicated and disciplined
folks who worked to put together a process that finds and removes errors
and is corrected based on errors that "escape".  We present a
one day overview of our process periodically to interested folks.
The next one is May 19th in Washington, D.C.  I can fax specifics
to those who are interested.

Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM

(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61409
From: mock@abell.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?


In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu>, kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
> In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:
> 
> But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x
> three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form
> an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the 
> resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different
> beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of 
> the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the 
> differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors.

This is not quite right.  The differential arrival time techinique
requires interplanetary baselines to get good positions.  The
differential arrival at the eight detectors differ by 10's of nanoseconds.
This is smaller than BATSE's microsecond timing capabilities.
BATSE, Ulysses, and Mars Obsverver are used for this technique.

Each BATSE detector does not have a full sky field of view.
The sensitivity of each detector decreases with increasing 
angle of incidence.  The burst position on the sky is determined by
comparing the count rates in different detectors.

Pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61410
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes...
>Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
>assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
>always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
>If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
>a "NO-OP" command.
> 
I know its semantics, but the "no-op" _doesn't_ do anything.  The
Command Loss Timer is simply looking for a command, any command.  A
"no-op" is simply a spacecraft command that drops bits into the big
bit bucket in the sky.  "No-op" also get used as timekeepers to provide
millisecond delays between command sequences (used on the thruster preps
on GRO, er, Compton) and to verify command links at the beginning of
TDRS events.  All in all, a rather useful command.  And, an intelligent
FDC test on Galileo (the Command Loss Timer).

David W. @ GSFC
(still looking for GRO data, even though I'm the wrong David) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61411
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes...
>If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it,
>then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done
>here?
> 
>Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy
>horrendous expense?
> 

I don't think a reboost exercise is analogous to a shuttle landing/launch
in terms of stresses/misalignments/etc.  I would think of the reboost as
a gentile push, where a landing, then launch as two JOLTS which would
put more mechanical stress on the instruments.  Additionally, there might
be a concern about landing loads to the shuttle in the event of a laden
landing.  Finally, probably some thought went into possible contamination 
problems if the instruments came back to earth.

Of course, the cost of two shuttle launches _is_ a good reason to avoid
something that might be done in one shuttle launch.  Here's hoping
Cepi's gang gets the job done right the first time.

David W. @ GSFC
(I used to work for Frank Cepollina)  

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61412
From: garym@alsys.com (Gary Morris @ignite)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes:
>rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:
>>[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the 
>>back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land 
>>with that much weight in the payload.

>Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???

HST is about 25,500 lbs (11,600 kg).  That doesn't include the cradle that
would have been in the cargo bay when it was deployed.  Spacelab-J on STS-47
was 21,861 lbs (according to the press-kit). 

As someone else pointed out if they had been unable to deploy it for some
reason that would have had to land with it still in the cargo bay and this
was a planned for contingency.  This is not a problem for the shuttle,
though it would eliminate KSC as a landing site, they still have to go to
Edwards when landing with something like Spacelab in the cargo bay. 

--GaryM
-- 
Gary Morris                      Internet: garym@alsys.com
TeleUSE Development              UUCP:     uunet!alsys.com!garym
Alsys Group (TeleSoft)           Phone:    +1 619-457-2700 x128
San Diego, CA, USA               Fax:      +1 619-452-1334

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61413
From: richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man)
Subject: Interstellar T _is_ 3-4K; notes on Pluto/Charon talk and Pluto Mission

   (sci.space readers can skip the first paragraph)

  Yesterday, in response to Henry Spencer's question about the 
temperature of a blackbody in interstellar space, I said "Dust grains
acts as blackbodies, and they're at 40-150 K."  Well, I was dead
wrong.  Our local interstellar dust expert, Bruce Draine, has
informed me that dust grains _aren't_ good radiators in the far IR,
which is why they are so warm; actually, the ambient radiation field
from distant stars can bring a true blackbody to only 3 or 4 Kelvin.
Sorry, Henry, and anyone else I misled.  Obviously, time for me to
take another ISM class :-(

  In other news, Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute gave
a talk on the Pluto-Charon binary system yesterday.  He gave a brief
overview of the currently-accepted system parameters (volume ratio of
about 8:1, mass ratio about 15:1 or so, plus lots more...) and then
gave his thoughts on the formation of Pluto-Charon.  His idea is 
that there were lots and lots of small planetesimals in the outer
solar system, with masses distributed as a power law of some kind;
over time, the planetesimals accreted into larger bodies.  Most got
scattered out of the solar system by close encounters with Jupiter
and Saturn, but many accreted into the gas giants, especially
Uranus and Neptune.  A large planetesimal was captured by Neptune -
we call it Triton [captured how?  Perhaps by a collision with a smaller,
already-existing Neptunian moon, perhaps by a very close passage through
Neptune's atmosphere - mondo aerobraking!].

  He notes that the two recently discovered "Kuiper Belt" objects,
1992 QB1 and 1993 FW, plus Chiron and Pholus, are all about the same 
mass, and he identifies this group as one-accretion-down from the
larger bodies of Triton and Pluto/Charon.  Pluto/Charon, he thinks,
formed when an impacting body hit proto-Pluto, knocking some material
into a ring around Pluto which later accreted in Charon; similar to
ideas about the formation of Earth's moon.  There is good evidence
from spectra that the surfaces of Pluto and Charon are very different
(Pluto has methane frost, Charon doesn't), which can be used as evidence
for the impact theory.

  He believes that there may be around 1000 Pluto-to-Chiron-sized objects
remaining in a relatively stable dynamical zone just outside Neptune's 
orbit, beyond 35 AU or so.  1992 QB1 and 1993 FW are the first members
of this population to be found, in his model.  Note that such bodies
will be very dark, since if their surfaces are covered with methane 
frost, it will have photolyzed into very dark, long-chain hydrocarbons
by now.  The reason that Pluto has such a high albedo (around 0.5, I think)
is that its surface warms up JUST enough around perihelion to sublimate,
and when the atmosphere freezes out again, thirty years later, it forms
bright, new frost.  So any bodies much farther away than 30 AU are going
to be very hard to see.

  I hope I haven't made any errors in the transcription; if you see
a howling mistake, it's undoubtedly mine, not his.

  By the way, he's one of the top guns behind the Pluto Fast Flyby
mission (I think), and said that the current plans are to use a
Titan 4 to send the probe on "just about a rectilinear trajectory"
to Pluto (we were speaking loosely at the time...).  He'd like
to use a Proton, which gives a slightly smaller velocity but costs
MUCH less.  His figures: $500 Million for 2 Titan 4 launches (there
will be two separate probes, launched separately), or $120 Million
for 2 Proton launches.  He told a story about how the Soviets originally
offered to sell Proton launches for $30 Million each, but were forced
to increase their prices in the US in order to be allowed in the
marketplace.

  I'm just telling you what he said.

                          Michael

-- 
-----                                                    Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."    richmond@astro.princeton.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61414
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>
>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>
>1.	Calculators
>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)

Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.

>3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)

Alejo Hausner (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)

(*) Richard Rhodes, "The making of the atomic bomb", Simon and

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61415
From: mrowley@pebbles.es.com (Michael Rowley)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)

In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca> jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes:
>Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
>assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
>always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
>If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
>a "NO-OP" command.
>
>Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
>nothing to do with jet propulsion.
>

	I don't know where you got this idea from, JPL's history dates back to 
	to the 1930s when a Caltech professor named Von Karman conducted  
	experiments in rocket PROPULSION with a group of graduate students
	on the present site of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.   The Army started
	funding the laboratory and had jurisdiction untill the late 1950s when
	NASA took over. The early research conducted at the Laboratory
	led to many applications the first being Jet-assisted takeoff rockets
	for aircraft.  I think this should explain where JPL got it's name, I
	should know, I worked there for five wonderful years.
----------mike. 
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@bnr.ca                        |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
>BNR Ltd.     |  bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars5!jcobban         |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61416
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/29/93

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                           April 23 - 29, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 22 and 23, delta Differenced One-way Range (DOR) passes were
performed over DSS-14/63 (Goldstone/Madrid 70 meter antennas) and DSS-14/43
(Goldstone/Canberra 70 meter antennas), respectively.  Initial results 
indicate the delta DOR pass on April 22 was unsuccessful due to ground
station hardware problems but the one on April 23 was successfully performed.

2.  On April 23, a cruise science Memory Readout (MRO) was performed for the
Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.  Analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

3.  On April 23, the spare power relay contacts were commanded closed via the
spacecraft stored sequence.  These relays were commanded closed by the CDS
(Command Data Subsystem) prior to launch and were again commanded closed to
preclude the possibility at Jupiter of the PPS relays/wiring being a
source of internal electrostatic charge (IESD).

4.  On April 26, cruise science Memory Readouts (MRO) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

5.  During the period from April 26 to April 27, a navigation cycle was
performed.  This navigation cycle provided near-continuous acquisition of
two-way doppler and ranging data during three consecutive passes of the
spacecraft over DSS-63, DSS-14, and DSS-43.

6.  On April 26, real-time commands were sent to test slew the Radio Relay
Antenna (RRA) in preparation for the mini-sequence slew test on April 28.
The RRA was slewed from approximately 3.5 degrees from stow to approximately
20.3 degrees.  Preliminary analysis indicated the antenna slewed to about 18
degrees which was well within the predicted range.  The RRA was commanded back
to approximately 15.2 degrees from stow.  Preliminary analysis indicated the
antenna reached about 15.8 degrees also well within the predicted range.  The
RRA motor temperature was at 1 degree C at the start of the activity and had
increased to 1.6 degrees C at its completion.

     After verifying proper RRA slewing, the RRA slew test mini-sequence was
uplinked to the spacecraft for execution on April 28.  Upon successful uplink,
a Delayed Action Command (DAC) was sent which will reposition the stator on
May 4 to its initial pre-test position.  Also, a DAC was sent to turn the
Two-Way Noncoherent (TWNC) on April 28 prior to the start of the RRA slew test
mini-sequence.

7.  On April 27, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

8.  On April 28, the RRA slew test executed nominally.  The spacecraft under
stored sequence control performed six RRA slews starting at about 16 degrees
from stow and going to 53 degrees, back to 25 degrees, then to 51 degrees,
back to 22 degrees, then to 48 degrees and then back to 21 degrees.  All of
the slews were well within the predicted range.  The RRA motor temperature was
at 2.3 degrees C at the start of the activity and had increased to 4.4
degrees C at its completion.  After completion of the RRA slews, real-time
commands were sent to reconfigure back to the pre-test configuration.

9.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 17 DN
(3.9 volts).  The DC measurement reads 134 DN (15.7 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

10. The Spacecraft status as of April 29, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  75 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 23 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 4 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 203 hours


GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  The first Galileo-GDS test of the MGDS V18.0 Command System (CMD) took
place April 27, 1993 with DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna).  The test went
well and demonstrated that the new command system interfaced with the new DSN
(Deep Space Network) Group 5 Command Processor Assembly (CPA).  The test was
successful and the next test for V18.0 CMD is scheduled for May 1, 1993 with
DSS-15 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna).

2.  The April System Engineers Monthly Report(SEMR)/Ground System Development
Office (GSDO) MMR was conducted Thursday, April 29.   A review of current
Project and Institutional (DSN and MOSO) system status was conducted.  On-going
cruise development plus the GSDO Phase 1 and 2 delivery schedules, past months
accomplishments  and potential problem areas were discussed.  No significant
schedule changes or significant problems were reported.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 29, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

	Distance from Earth         187,745,300 km (1.26 AU)
	Distance from Sun           296,335,800 km (1.98 AU)
	Heliocentric Speed          89,100 km per hour
	Distance from Jupiter       522,015,800 km
	Round Trip Light Time       20 minutes, 58 seconds

SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 29, 1993, a total of 70259 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65150  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5109 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 74 real time commands were transmitted: 73 were initiated
in the sequence design process and one initiated in the real time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to perform the initial
RRA slew test, uplink the RRA slew test mini-sequence, DACs to reposition the
stator and turn the TWNC on, reset the command loss timer, and execute the
RRA slew test.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61417
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:


>4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
>we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

Correct, we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

Therefore, we can't tell whether they're slightly extra solar
or not!

(which means that parallax can't tell us whether or not it's real close.)

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61418
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: HyperKnowledge

In article <29APR199311345485@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
-| In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes...
-| > 
-| > 
-| >ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP
-| 
-| I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to
-| answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these
-| people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today.
-| 
-| It is called labview by National Instruments. IT is a wonderful object
-| IT is a wonderful object oriented graphical programming language.
-| [some lines deleted]

I am afraid you are mis-directed. NeXTSTEP is an operating system as opposed to 
a package. I have read a little about it but since Steve Jobs does not seem to 
have the marketing capabilities of Bill Gates my info. is limited. Probably why
the far inferior Windows NT is going to be more widely distributed (but that
is another flame-ridden story). Some of the innovative features of NeXTSTEP are
binary compatibility across platforms (eg you can just copy your program from
a Sparc to a PC and it would run, as opposed to buying the version of the package
ported to a PC), graphical object-oriented design (its all WSIWIG postscript), 
supports parallel hetrogeneous processing, and best of all it is based around 
the Mach micro-kernel so you can make it look like Unix with X, or DOS, or NT or 
even VMS if you feel the need. No package out there comes even close. I hope 
people will subscribe to the HyperKnowledge project and NeXTSTEP finally
takes off in my lifetime :-)
-- 
| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine         |
| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk  |
| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61419
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:

>u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes:
>	   Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
>   see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.

>That's a very good point.  Perhaps none of the nearby stars have Oort
>clouds?  Alpha-centauri is a multiple-star system; you wouldn't expect
>an Oort cloud in it.

Sure about that? Maybe Proxima might cause problems, but at Oort
Cloud distances AC a and AC b together look like a point source.

Besides, even the solar system's Oort cloud is unstable over
geologic time, right, and needs to be replentished from somewhere
else, like the short period comets of the Kupier Belt?

(Or maybe I'm misremembering something I read or heard somewhere...)

>  What's the nearest single-star that is likely to
>have a planetary system?

Until we're able to perform a broad-band survey of nearby stars
to detect planets, we won't know enough to say whether or not
a single star has planets. And we're likely to find out about the
close ones first.

Heck, if neutron stars can have planets, anything can have planets.
(Or was that discovery disconfirmed?)

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61420
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. positional stuff.

belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

>        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were
>talking the other day about putting just one detector on one of the
>Pluto satellites.  THen we realized that the satellite alone is only
>carrying something like 200 pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector
>needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1 alone weighs about 200
>pounds itself.

>        We decided against it.
                                                        -jeremy
Are you talking about a single BATSE component, or
the whole thing?

You *could* propose a BATSE probe; launch two or three with ion
drive on various planetary trajectories... your resolution increaces
the more they're spaced apart. You could probably cheaply eject them
from the solar system with enough flybys and patience.

Things would start out slow, then slowly get better and better
resolution...
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61421
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93119.24999999  .00041555  00000-0  12437-3 0    90
2 22640  28.4657 249.3697 0008512 260.9747 152.1416 15.90732913   425
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61422
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

Original to: keithley@apple.com
G'day keithley@apple.com

21 Apr 93 22:25, keithley@apple.com wrote to All:

 kc> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley), via Kralizec 3:713/602


 kc> But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST
about a
 kc> low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
 kc> Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
 kc> stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
 kc> unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission.
 kc> Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was
$6-$9
 kc> billion for the US share.

 kc> moon for a year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a
 kc> cheaper/better way of delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface
within
 kc> the decade?  Anyone have a more precise guess about how much a year's
 kc> supply of consumables and equipment would weigh?

Why not modify the GD plan into Zurbrin's Compact Moon Direct scheme? let
one of those early flight carry an O2 plant and make your own.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-1204  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61423
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

Original to: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
G'day wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM

20 Apr 93 18:17, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM wrote to All:

 wAC> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 wAC> The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when
 wAC> the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would
 wAC> take the offer.

If we assume 6% inflation since 1969, that $25B would be worth about $100B
GD reckon a moon mission today could cost only $10B. Thats a factor of ten
reduction in cost. It might be possible to reduce that number futher by
using a few shortcuts ( Russian rockets?).   Asuming it gets built, I think
the Delta Clipper could very well achive the goal.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-1204  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61424
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
relaunching it:

(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
to thermal cycle stresses...)

I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
(I assume that they were caged for launch)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      				zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
GN&C R&D					Martin Marietta Astronautics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61425
From: tstroup@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

In article <1rp0ht$g25@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
>sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
>to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
>or even curious about spaceflight. 

I disagree.  It think the average joe is interested/curious about spaceflight
but sees it as an elitist activity.  Not one which he is ever going to
participate in.

>All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
>which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
>document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
>term human habitation in space.

Why is the general public going to be interested in the technical details
of long term space habitation?  I like the idea of the study, but it should
be released to other scientists and engineers who will be able to use it.
If you want a general public document, you'll need a more general publication.

>I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to 
>succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
>(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
>chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
>to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

As one working on Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems, engineering
the microworld isn't the problem.  The problem is understanding the basic
chemical, biological and medical factors to be able to engineer them
efficiently.  For example, the only way we know how to produce food is from
plants and animals.  Food synthesis is not very far advanced.  So we have
to orbit a farm.  Well that's obviously not very efficient, so we use 
technology to reduce the mass and grow plants hydroponically instead of 
using dirt.  This is where the engineering comes in.  But new technologies
bring new basic questions that we don't have the answers to.  Like, in 
dirt we can grow tomatoes and lettuce right beside each other, but in 
hydroponics it turns out that you can't do that.  The lettuce growth is 
stunted when it's grown in the same hydroponic solution as tomatoes.  So 
now you have to consider what other plants are going to have similar
interactions.  This means some basic applied scientific research.  And that's
what needs to be done with all technologies that have been developed so far.
We also need to find out how they interact together.  That's where we are now.

>So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
>methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
>which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight. 

First you need to do the literature search.  There is a lot of information
out there.  Maybe we should just pick a specific area of long term habitation.
This could be useful, especially if we make it available on the net.  Then
we can look at methods of analyzing the technologies.

>Such a detailed
>literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
>and clearly important to existing space programs.
>In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
>various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
>This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
>basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
>and any other source!

Unless there is an unbelievable outpouring of interest on this on the net,
I think we should develop a detailed data base of the literature search 
first.  Then if we accomplish that we can go on to real analysis.  The data
base itself could be useful for future engineers.

That's my response Ken, what do you think?

Tim


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61426
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: Abyss-breathing fluids

"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to 
breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations 
required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning 
fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book.
I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).

	regards
		Ata <(|)>.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61427
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe

          

                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
                          
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe ) 

               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the 
          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O 
          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as 
          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis 
          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the 
          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and 
          Christopher Bird, 1973: 

               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same 
                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]

               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight 
                   and number.

               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper 
                   for three or four weeks.

               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.

               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for 
                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the 
                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier 
                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen, 
                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]

          
               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our 
          own bodies. 
          
               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with 
          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED 
          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much 
          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).  
          
               Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
          organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen, 
          oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. 
          
               The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by micro-organisms, 
          cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building bricks, etc..  
          
               The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron, 
          creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators 
          and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones). 
          
               Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY! 
          

               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the 
          currently accepted "laws" of physics, (including the law 
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH 
          temperatures and pressures.) 



          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In 
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE, 
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY", 
          1st Edition, 
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of 
               Science, 
          1972, 
          163 Pages, Illustrated, 
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638, 
               Binghamton, NY  13902 

          
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS", 
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 
          1973, 
          402 Pages, 
          Harper & Row, 
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is 
               FASCINATING! ]
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61428
From: bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski)
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?



There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:

1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we
determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?

2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will
we expend resources from earth to help them?

3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable,
what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought
back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?



-- 
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61429
From: oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly)
Subject: RE: Commercials on the Moon

u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes

> How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of
> people.

Arthur C. Clarke was way ahead of you on this one... he wrote a short story
(title?) in the 1950s describing exactly your proposal!

Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61430
From: 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw)
Subject: Single Launch Space Station

Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
>the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
>rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
>main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
>and jettisoned after ET separation.

Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
bring them down to use as spares?


Karl
sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61431
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: NASA budget and STS costs


What fraction of the NASA workforce is civil servant 
as opposed to contractor and what are the rules on
reduction in work force for civil servants?

eg, if say the shuttle program is terminated, how
much is payroll reduced and how?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61432
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>
>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>
>Jonathan

Jonathan, interesting questions.  Some wonder whether or not the moon could
have ever supported an atmosphere.  I'd be interested in knowing what
our geology/environmental sciences friends think.

As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance.
This was accomplished by a team of mountaineers who trained at high
altitudes for quite awhile (I think a few months) and then were flown by
helicopter from that training altitude to the equivalent altitude on
Mount Everest, where they began the ascent of our planet's highest peak
without oxygen tanks.  This is quite a feat of physiological endurance, because
if you or I tried to go to 20,000 feet and exert ourselves, we would probably
pass out, get altitude sick, and could even die from cerebral edema. So
this is the limit of low pressure.  High pressure situations would be
limited by the duration of time which it takes to slowly acclimate to a higher
pressure.  Skin divers would know alot about high pressure situations and
could tell you about how they safely make deep dives without getting the
bends.  Some military experiments have put people under several atmospheres of
pressure (not sure what the high limit was because the papers aren't in
front of me).  Usually at a certain point, the nitrogen in the air becomes
toxic to the body and you start acting idiotic.  Divers call this nitrogen
narcosis.  Those afflicted can do very dangerous and irrational things, like
taking off a diving mask and oxygen tank in order to talk to fish at 100 feet
under water.  (Hope any diving folk can elaborate on this matter, as I
am not a diving expert).

Mars cannot support human life without pressurization because the atmosphere
is too thin (1/100 th  our Earth's atmospheric density).  In addition,
the Mars atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.  Basically, you would need a 
pressure suit there, or you'd die from the low pressure.  Interesting huh?

ken
khayash@hsc.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61433
From: u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer)
Subject: Rocket Types


The other week I saw a TV program about the american space industry and NASA.
It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
particles for propolsion.
The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement
of a full scale rocket.
Did anybody see this program?
If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?

Thanx. 8-)

Glen Balmer...


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61434
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr29.201036.11256@den.mmc.com>, zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes...
>Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
>relaunching it:
> 
>(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
>There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
>I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
>order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
>items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
>retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
>have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
>might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
>to thermal cycle stresses...)
> 
>I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
>HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
>much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
>(I assume that they were caged for launch)?
> 

It would be nice if someone here from the HST program was talking instead
of all the speculation that is going on here. From what I understand from
Dr. Frank Six of the Marshall Space Flight Center there is no insrmountable
problem in bringing HST back. IT was designed that way to begin with.

Also it is my understanding that the solar arrays WILL be one of the items
replaced on this mission. The originals were built by Brit Aerospace and
I think the new ones are too. I am currently working with the guys at MSFC
that are in charge is the HST power system, although I have not spoken with
them in a long time about HST. 

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61435
From: newsdesk@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov (JPL Public Information)
Subject: JPL Info Summary/"Our Solar System at a Glance"

This file and other text and image files from JPL missions are
available from the JPL Info public access computer site,
reachable by Internet via anonymous ftp to pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov
(128.149.6.2); or by dialup modem to +1 (818) 354-1333, up to
9600 bits per second, parameters N-8-1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Our Solar System at a Glance

Information Summary 
PMS 010-A (JPL)
June 1991

JPL 410-34-1  6/91

NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institue of Technology
Pasadena, California


For a printed copy of this publication contact the public mail
office at the NASA center in your geographic region.



INTRODUCTION

     From our small world we have gazed upon the cosmic ocean for
untold thousands of years. Ancient astronomers observed points of
light that appeared to move among the stars. They called these
objects planets, meaning wanderers, and named them after Roman
deities -- Jupiter, king of the gods; Mars, the god of war;
Mercury, messenger of the gods; Venus, the god of love and
beauty, and Saturn, father of Jupiter and god of agriculture. The
stargazers also observed comets with sparkling tails, and meteors
or shooting stars apparently falling from the sky.

     Science flourished during the European Renaissance.
Fundamental physical laws governing planetary motion were
discovered, and the orbits of the planets around the Sun were
calculated. In the 17th century, astronomers pointed a new device
called the telescope at the heavens and made startling
discoveries.

     But the years since 1959 have amounted to a golden age of
solar system exploration. Advancements in rocketry after World
War II enabled our machines to break the grip of Earth's gravity
and travel to the Moon and to other planets.

     The United States has sent automated spacecraft, then
human-crewed expeditions, to explore the Moon. Our automated
machines have orbited and landed on Venus and Mars; explored the
Sun's environment; observed comets, and made close-range surveys
while flying past Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

     These travelers brought a quantum leap in our knowledge and
understanding of the solar system. Through the electronic sight
and other "senses" of our automated spacecraft, color and
complexion have been given to worlds that for centuries appeared
to Earth-bound eyes as fuzzy disks or indistinct points of light.
And dozens of previously unknown objects have been discovered.

     Future historians will likely view these pioneering flights
through the solar system as some of the most remarkable
achievements of the 20th century.
     

AUTOMATED SPACECRAFT

     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's)
automated spacecraft for solar system exploration come in many
shapes and sizes. While they are designed to fulfill separate and
specific mission objectives, the craft share much in common.

     Each spacecraft consists of various scientific instruments
selected for a particular mission, supported by basic subsystems
for electrical power, trajectory and orientation control, as well
as for processing data and communicating with Earth.

     Electrical power is required to operate the spacecraft
instruments and systems. NASA uses both solar energy from arrays
of photovoltaic cells and small nuclear generators to power its
solar system missions. Rechargeable batteries are employed for
backup and supplemental power.

     Imagine that a spacecraft has successfully journeyed
millions of miles through space to fly but one time near a
planet, only to have its cameras and other sensing instruments
pointed the wrong way as it speeds past the target! To help
prevent such a mishap, a subsystem of small thrusters is used to
control spacecraft.

     The thrusters are linked with devices that maintain a
constant gaze at selected stars. Just as Earth's early seafarers
used the stars to navigate the oceans, spacecraft use stars to
maintain their bearings in space. With the subsystem locked onto
fixed points of reference, flight controllers can keep a
spacecraft's scientific instruments pointed at the target body
and the craft's communications antennas pointed toward Earth. The
thrusters can also be used to fine-tune the flight path and speed
of the spacecraft to ensure that a target body is encountered at
the planned distance and on the proper trajectory.

     Between 1959 and 1971, NASA spacecraft were dispatched to
study the Moon and the solar environment; they also scanned the
inner planets other than Earth -- Mercury, Venus and Mars. These
three worlds, and our own, are known as the terrestrial planets
because they share a solid-rock composition.

     For the early planetary reconnaissance missions, NASA
employed a highly successful series of spacecraft called the
Mariners. Their flights helped shape the planning of later
missions. Between 1962 and 1975, seven Mariner missions conducted
the first surveys of our planetary neighbors in space.

     All of the Mariners used solar panels as their primary power
source. The first and the final versions of the spacecraft had
two wings covered with photovoltaic cells. Other Mariners were
equipped with four solar panels extending from their octagonal
bodies.

     Although the Mariners ranged from the Mariner 2 Venus
spacecraft, weighing in at 203 kilograms (447 pounds), to the
Mariner 9 Mars Orbiter, weighing in at 974 kilograms (2,147
pounds), their basic design remained quite similar throughout the
program. The Mariner 5 Venus spacecraft, for example, had
originally been a backup for the Mariner 4 Mars flyby. The
Mariner 10 spacecraft sent to Venus and Mercury used components
left over from the Mariner 9 Mars Orbiter program.

     In 1972, NASA launched Pioneer 10, a Jupiter spacecraft.
Interest was shifting to four of the outer planets -- Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune -- giant balls of dense gas quite
different from the terrestrial worlds we had already surveyed.

     Four NASA spacecraft in all -- two Pioneers and two Voyagers
-- were sent in the 1970s to tour the outer regions of our solar
system. Because of the distances involved, these travelers took
anywhere from 20 months to 12 years to reach their destinations.
Barring faster spacecraft, they will eventually become the first
human artifacts to journey to distant stars. Because the Sun's
light becomes so faint in the outer solar system, these travelers
do not use solar power but instead operate on electricity
generated by heat from the decay of radioisotopes.

     NASA also developed highly specialized spacecraft to revisit
our neighbors Mars and Venus in the middle and late 1970s. Twin
Viking Landers were equipped to serve as seismic and weather
stations and as biology laboratories. Two advanced orbiters --
descendants of the Mariner craft -- carried the Viking Landers
from Earth and then studied martian features from above.

     Two drum-shaped Pioneer spacecraft visited Venus in 1978.
The Pioneer Venus Orbiter was equipped with a radar instrument
that allowed it to "see" through the planet's dense cloud cover
to study surface features. The Pioneer Venus Multiprobe carried
four probes that were dropped through the clouds. The probes and
the main body -- all of which contained scientific instruments --
radioed information about the planet's atmosphere during their
descent toward the surface.

     A new generation of automated spacecraft -- including
Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars Observer, the Comet
Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) and Cassini -- is being
developed and sent out into the solar system to make detailed
examinations that will increase our understanding of our
neighborhood and our own planet.
     

The Sun

     A discussion of the objects in the solar system must start
with the Sun. The Sun dwarfs the other bodies, representing
approximately 99.86 percent of all the mass in the solar system;
all of the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust and gas add up
to only about 0.14 percent. This 0.14 percent represents the
material left over from the Sun's formation. One hundred and nine
Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its
interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

     As a star, the Sun generates energy through the process of
fusion. The temperature at the Sun's core is 15 million degrees
Celsius (27 million degrees Fahrenheit), and the pressure there
is 340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level. The Sun's
surface temperature of 5,500 degrees Celsius (10,000 degrees
Fahrenheit) seems almost chilly compared to its core-temperature.
At the solar core, hydrogen can fuse into helium, producing
energy. The Sun also produces a strong magnetic field and streams
of charged particles, both extending far beyond the planets.

     The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years
and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or
so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium
into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing
so large that it will swallow Earth. After a billion years as a
"red giant," it will suddenly collapse into a "white dwarf" --
the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion
years to cool off completely.

     Many spacecraft have explored the Sun's environment, but
none have gotten any closer to its surface than approximately
two-thirds of the distance from Earth to the Sun. Pioneers 5-11,
the Pioneer Venus Orbiter, Voyagers 1 and 2 and other spacecraft
have all sampled the solar environment. The Ulysses spacecraft,
launched on October 6, 1990, is a joint solar mission of NASA and
the European Space Agency. After using Jupiter's gravity to
change its trajectory, Ulysses will fly over the Sun's polar
regions during 1994 and 1995 and will perform a wide range of
studies using nine onboard scientific instruments.

     We are fortunate that the Sun is exactly the way it is. If
it were different in almost any way, life would almost certainly
never have developed on Earth.
     

Mercury

     Obtaining the first close-up views of Mercury was the
primary objective of the Mariner 10 spacecraft, launched on
November 3, 1973, from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. After a
journey of nearly five months, which included a flyby of Venus,
the spacecraft passed within 703 kilometers (437 miles) of the
solar system's innermost planet on March 29, 1974.

     Until Mariner 10, little was known about Mercury. Even the
best telescopic views from Earth showed Mercury as an indistinct
object lacking any surface detail. The planet is so close to the
Sun that it is usually lost in solar glare. When the planet is
visible on Earth's horizon just after sunset or before dawn, it
is obscured by the haze and dust in our atmosphere. Only radar
telescopes gave any hint of Mercury's surface conditions prior to
the voyage of Mariner 10.

     The photographs Mariner 10 radioed back to Earth revealed an
ancient, heavily cratered surface, closely resembling our own
Moon. The pictures also showed huge cliffs crisscrossing the
planet. These apparently were created when Mercury's interior
cooled and shrank, buckling the planet's crust. The cliffs are as
high as 3 kilometers (2 miles) and as long as 500 kilometers (310
miles).

     Instruments on Mariner 10 discovered that Mercury has a weak
magnetic field and a trace of atmosphere -- a trillionth the
density of Earth's atmosphere and composed chiefly of argon, neon
and helium. When the planet's orbit takes it closest to the Sun,
surface temperatures range from 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees
Fahrenheit) on Mercury's sunlit side to -183 degrees Celsius
(-298 degrees Fahrenheit) on the dark side. This range in surface
temperature -- 650 degrees Celsius (1,170 degrees Fahrenheit) --
is the largest for a single body in the solar system. Mercury
literally bakes and freezes at the same time.

     Days and nights are long on Mercury. The combination of a
slow rotation relative to the stars (59 Earth days) and a rapid
revolution around the Sun (88 Earth days) means that one Mercury
solar day takes 176 Earth days or two Mercury years -- the time
it takes the innermost planet to complete two orbits around the
Sun! 

     Mercury appears to have a crust of light silicate rock like
that of Earth. Scientists believe Mercury has a heavy iron-rich
core making up slightly less than half of its volume. That would
make Mercury's core larger, proportionally, than the Moon's core
or those of any of the planets.

     After the initial Mercury encounter, Mariner 10 made two
additional flybys -- on September 21, 1974, and March 16, 1975 --
before control gas used to orient the spacecraft was exhausted
and the mission was concluded. Each flyby took place at the same
local Mercury time when the identical half of the planet was
illuminated; as a result, we still have not seen one-half of the
planet's surface.
     

Venus

     Veiled by dense cloud cover, Venus -- our nearest planetary
neighbor -- was the first planet to be explored. The Mariner 2
spacecraft, launched on August 27, 1962, was the first of more
than a dozen successful American and Soviet missions to study the
mysterious planet. As spacecraft flew by or orbited Venus,
plunged into the atmosphere or gently landed on Venus' surface,
romantic myths and speculations about our neighbor were laid to
rest.

     On December 14, 1962, Mariner 2 passed within 34,839
kilometers (21,648 miles) of Venus and became the first
spacecraft to scan another planet; onboard instruments measured
Venus for 42 minutes. Mariner 5, launched in June 1967, flew much
closer to the planet. Passing within 4,094 kilometers (2,544
miles) of Venus on the second American flyby, Mariner 5's
instruments measured the planet's magnetic field, ionosphere,
radiation belts and temperatures. On its way to Mercury, Mariner
10 flew by Venus and transmitted ultraviolet pictures to Earth
showing cloud circulation patterns in the Venusian atmosphere.

     In the spring and summer of 1978, two spacecraft were
launched to further unravel the mysteries of Venus. On December 4
of the same year, the Pioneer Venus Orbiter became the first
spacecraft placed in orbit around the planet.

     Five days later, the five separate components making up the
second spacecraft -- the Pioneer Venus Multiprobe -- entered the
Venusian atmosphere at different locations above the planet. The
four small, independent probes and the main body radioed
atmospheric data back to Earth during their descent toward the
surface. Although designed to examine the atmosphere, one of the
probes survived its impact with the surface and continued to
transmit data for another hour.

     Venus resembles Earth in size, physical composition and
density more closely than any other known planet. However,
spacecraft have discovered significant differences as well. For
example, Venus' rotation (west to east) is retrograde (backward)
compared to the east-to-west spin of Earth and most of the other
planets.

     Approximately 96.5 percent of Venus' atmosphere (95 times as
dense as Earth's) is carbon dioxide. The principal constituent of
Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen. Venus' atmosphere acts like a
greenhouse, permitting solar radiation to reach the surface but
trapping the heat that would ordinarily be radiated back into
space. As a result, the planet's average surface temperature is
482 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit), hot enough to melt
lead.

     A radio altimeter on the Pioneer Venus Orbiter provided the
first means of seeing through the planet's dense cloud cover and
determining surface features over almost the entire planet.
NASA's Magellan spacecraft, launched on May 5, 1989, has been in
orbit around Venus since August 10, 1990. The spacecraft uses
radar-mapping techniques to provide ultrahigh-resolution images
of the surface.

     Magellan has revealed a landscape dominated by volcanic
features, faults and impact craters. Huge areas of the surface
show evidence of multiple periods of lava flooding with flows
lying on top of previous ones. An elevated region named Ishtar
Terra is a lava-filled basin as large as the United States. At
one end of this plateau sits Maxwell Montes, a mountain the size
of Mount Everest. Scarring the mountain's flank is a
100-kilometer (62-mile) wide, 2.5-kilometer (1.5-mile) deep
impact crater named Cleopatra. (Almost all features on Venus are
named for women; Maxwell Montes, Alpha Regio and Beta Regio are
the exceptions.) Craters survive on Venus for perhaps 400 million
years because there is no water and very little wind erosion.

     Extensive fault-line networks cover the planet, probably the
result of the same crustal flexing that produces plate tectonics
on Earth. But on Venus the surface temperature is sufficient to
weaken the rock, which cracks just about everywhere, preventing
the formation of major plates and large earthquake faults like
the San Andreas Fault in California.

     Venus' predominant weather pattern is a high-altitude,
high-speed circulation of clouds that contain sulfuric acid. At
speeds reaching as high as 360 kilometers (225 miles) per hour,
the clouds circle the planet in only four Earth days. The
circulation is in the same direction -- west to east -- as Venus'
slow rotation of 243 Earth days, whereas Earth's winds blow in
both directions -- west to east and east to west -- in six
alternating bands. Venus' atmosphere serves as a simplified
laboratory for the study of our weather.
     

Earth

     As viewed from space, our world's distinguishing
characteristics are its blue waters, brown and green land masses
and white clouds. We are enveloped by an ocean of air consisting
of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other
constituents. The only planet in the solar system known to harbor
life, Earth orbits the Sun at an average distance of 150 million
kilometers (93 million miles). Earth is the third planet from the
Sun and the fifth largest in the solar system, with a diameter
just a few hundred kilometers larger than that of Venus.

     Our planet's rapid spin and molten nickel-iron core give
rise to an extensive magnetic field, which, along with the
atmosphere, shields us from nearly all of the harmful radiation
coming from the Sun and other stars. Earth's atmosphere protects
us from meteors as well, most of which burn up before they can
strike the surface. Active geological processes have left no
evidence of the pelting Earth almost certainly received soon
after it formed -- about 4.6 billion years ago. Along with the
other newly formed planets, it was showered by space debris in
the early days of the solar system.

     From our journeys into space, we have learned much about our
home planet. The first American satellite -- Explorer 1 -- was
launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida on January 31, 1958, and
discovered an intense radiation zone, now called the Van Allen
radiation belts, surrounding Earth.

     Since then, other research satellites have revealed that our
planet's magnetic field is distorted into a tear-drop shape by
the solar wind -- the stream of charged particles continuously
ejected from the Sun. We've learned that the magnetic field does
not fade off into space but has definite boundaries. And we now
know that our wispy upper atmosphere, once believed calm and
uneventful, seethes with activity -- swelling by day and
contracting by night. Affected by changes in solar activity, the
upper atmosphere contributes to weather and climate on Earth.

     Besides affecting Earth's weather, solar activity gives rise
to a dramatic visual phenomenon in our atmosphere. When charged
particles from the solar wind become trapped in Earth's magnetic
field, they collide with air molecules above our planet's
magnetic poles. These air molecules then begin to glow and are
known as the auroras or the northern and southern lights.

     Satellites about 35,789 kilometers (22,238 miles) out in
space play a major role in daily local weather forecasting. These
watchful electronic eyes warn us of dangerous storms. Continuous
global monitoring provides a vast amount of useful data and
contributes to a better understanding of Earth's complex weather
systems.

     From their unique vantage points, satellites can survey
Earth's oceans, land use and resources, and monitor the planet's
health. These eyes in space have saved countless lives, provided
tremendous conveniences and shown us that we may be altering our
planet in dangerous ways.
     

The Moon

     The Moon is Earth's single natural satellite. The first
human footsteps on an alien world were made by American
astronauts on the dusty surface of our airless, lifeless
companion. In preparation for the human-crewed Apollo
expeditions, NASA dispatched the automated Ranger, Surveyor and
Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to study the Moon between 1964 and 1968.

     NASA's Apollo program left a large legacy of lunar materials
and data. Six two-astronaut crews landed on and explored the
lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, carrying back a collection
of rocks and soil weighing a total of 382 kilograms (842 pounds)
and consisting of more than 2,000 separate samples.

     From this material and other studies, scientists have
constructed a history of the Moon that includes its infancy.
Rocks collected from the lunar highlands date to about 4.0-4.3
billion years old. The first few million years of the Moon's
existence were so violent that few traces of this period remain.
As a molten outer layer gradually cooled and solidified into
different kinds of rock, the Moon was bombarded by huge asteroids
and smaller objects. Some of the asteroids were as large as Rhode
Island or Delaware, and their collisions with the Moon created
basins hundreds of kilometers across.

     This catastrophic bombardment tapered off approximately four
billion years ago, leaving the lunar highlands covered with huge,
overlapping craters and a deep layer of shattered and broken
rock. Heat produced by the decay of radioactive elements began to
melt the interior of the Moon at depths of about 200 kilometers
(125 miles) below the surface. Then, for the next 700 million
years -- from about 3.8 to 3.1 billion years ago -- lava rose
from inside the Moon. The lava gradually spread out over the
surface, flooding the large impact basins to form the dark areas
that Galileo Galilei, an astronomer of the Italian Renaissance,
called maria, meaning seas.

     As far as we can tell, there has been no significant
volcanic activity on the Moon for more than three billion years.
Since then, the lunar surface has been altered only by
micrometeorites, by the atomic particles from the Sun and stars,
by the rare impacts of large meteorites and by spacecraft and
astronauts. If our astronauts had landed on the Moon a billion
years ago, they would have seen a landscape very similar to the
one today. Thousands of years from now, the footsteps left by the
Apollo crews will remain sharp and clear.

     The origin of the Moon is still a mystery. Four theories
attempt an explanation: the Moon formed near Earth as a separate
body; it was torn from Earth; it formed somewhere else and was
captured by our planet's gravity, or it was the result of a
collision between Earth and an asteroid about the size of Mars.
The last theory has some good support but is far from certain.
     

Mars

     Of all the planets, Mars has long been considered the solar
system's prime candidate for harboring extraterrestrial life.
Astronomers studying the red planet through telescopes saw what
appeared to be straight lines crisscrossing its surface. These
observations -- later determined to be optical illusions -- led
to the popular notion that intelligent beings had constructed a
system of irrigation canals on the planet. In 1938, when Orson
Welles broadcast a radio drama based on the science fiction
classic War of the Worlds  by H.G. Wells, enough people believed
in the tale of invading martians to cause a near panic.

     Another reason for scientists to expect life on Mars had to
do with the apparent seasonal color changes on the planet's
surface. This phenomenon led to speculation that conditions might
support a bloom of martian vegetation during the warmer months
and cause plant life to become dormant during colder periods.

     So far, six American missions to Mars have been carried out.
Four Mariner spacecraft -- three flying by the planet and one
placed into martian orbit -- surveyed the planet extensively
before the Viking Orbiters and Landers arrived.

     Mariner 4, launched in late 1964, flew past Mars on July 14,
1965, coming within 9,846 kilometers (6,118 miles) of the
surface. Transmitting to Earth 22 close-up pictures of the
planet, the spacecraft found many craters and naturally occurring
channels but no evidence of artificial canals or flowing water.
Mariners 6 and 7 followed with their flybys during the summer of
1969 and returned 201 pictures. Mariners 4, 6 and 7 showed a
diversity of surface conditions as well as a thin, cold, dry
atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

     On May 30, 1971, the Mariner 9 Orbiter was launched on a
mission to make a year-long study of the martian surface. The
spacecraft arrived five and a half months after lift-off, only to
find Mars in the midst of a planet-wide dust storm that made
surface photography impossible for several weeks. But after the
storm cleared, Mariner 9 began returning the first of 7,329
pictures; these revealed previously unknown martian features,
including evidence that large amounts of water once flowed across
the surface, etching river valleys and flood plains.

     In August and September 1975, the Viking 1 and 2 spacecraft
-- each consisting of an orbiter and a lander -- lifted off from
Kennedy Space Center. The mission was designed to answer several
questions about the red planet, including, Is there life there?
Nobody expected the spacecraft to spot martian cities, but it was
hoped that the biology experiments on the Viking Landers would at
least find evidence of primitive life -- past or present.

     Viking Lander 1 became the first spacecraft to successfully
touch down on another planet when it landed on July 20, 1976,
while the United States was celebrating its Bicentennial. Photos
sent back from the Chryse Planitia ("Plains of Gold") showed a
bleak, rusty-red landscape. Panoramic images returned by the
lander revealed a rolling plain, littered with rocks and marked
by rippled sand dunes. Fine red dust from the martian soil gives
the sky a salmon hue. When Viking Lander 2 touched down on Utopia
Planitia on September 3, 1976, it viewed a more rolling landscape
than the one seen by its predecessor -- one without visible
dunes.

     The results sent back by the laboratory on each Viking
Lander were inconclusive. Small samples of the red martian soil
were tested in three different experiments designed to detect
biological processes. While some of the test results seemed to
indicate biological activity, later analysis confirmed that this
activity was inorganic in nature and related to the planet's soil
chemistry. Is there life on Mars? No one knows for sure, but the
Viking mission found no evidence that organic molecules exist
there.

     The Viking Landers became weather stations, recording wind
velocity and direction as well as atmospheric temperature and
pressure. Few weather changes were observed. The highest
temperature recorded by either craft was -14 degrees Celsius (7
degrees Fahrenheit) at the Viking Lander 1 site in midsummer.

     The lowest temperature, -120 degrees Celsius (-184 degrees
Fahrenheit), was recorded at the more northerly Viking Lander 2
site during winter. Near-hurricane wind speeds were measured at
the two martian weather stations during global dust storms, but
because the atmosphere is so thin, wind force is minimal. Viking
Lander 2 photographed light patches of frost -- probably
water-ice -- during its second winter on the planet.

     The martian atmosphere, like that of Venus, is primarily
carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and oxygen are present only in small
percentages. Martian air contains only about 1/1,000 as much
water as our air, but even this small amount can condense out,
forming clouds that ride high in the atmosphere or swirl around
the slopes of towering volcanoes. Local patches of early morning
fog can form in valleys.

     There is evidence that in the past a denser martian
atmosphere may have allowed water to flow on the planet. Physical
features closely resembling shorelines, gorges, riverbeds and
islands suggest that great rivers once marked the planet.

     Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos. They are small and
irregularly shaped and possess ancient, cratered surfaces. It is
possible the moons were originally asteroids that ventured too
close to Mars and were captured by its gravity.

     The Viking Orbiters and Landers exceeded by large margins
their design lifetimes of 120 and 90 days, respectively. The
first to fail was Viking Orbiter 2, which stopped operating on
July 24, 1978, when a leak depleted its attitude-control gas.
Viking Lander 2 operated until April 12, 1980, when it was shut
down because of battery degeneration. Viking Orbiter 1 quit on
August 7, 1980, when the last of its attitude-control gas was
used up. Viking Lander 1 ceased functioning on November 13, 1983.

     Despite the inconclusive results of the Viking biology
experiments, we know more about Mars than any other planet except
Earth. NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft, to be launched in
September 1992, will expand our knowledge of the martian
environment and lead to human exploration of the red planet. 
     

Asteroids

     The solar system has a large number of rocky and metallic
objects that are in orbit around the Sun but are too small to be
considered full-fledged planets. These objects are known as
asteroids or minor planets. Most, but not all, are found in a
band or belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Some have
orbits that cross Earth's path, and there is evidence that Earth
has been hit by asteroids in the past. One of the least eroded,
best preserved examples is the Barringer Meteor Crater near
Winslow, Arizona.

     Asteroids are material left over from the formation of the
solar system. One theory suggests that they are the remains of a
planet that was destroyed in a massive collision long ago. More
likely, asteroids are material that never coalesced into a
planet. In fact, if the estimated total mass of all asteroids was
gathered into a single object, the object would be only about
1,500 kilometers (932 miles) across -- less than half the
diameter of our Moon. 

     Thousands of asteroids have been identified from Earth. It
is estimated that 100,000 are bright enough to eventually be
photographed through Earth-based telescopes.

     Much of our understanding about asteroids comes from
examining pieces of space debris that fall to the surface of
Earth. Asteroids that are on a collision course with Earth are
called meteoroids. When a meteoroid strikes our atmosphere at
high velocity, friction causes this chunk of space matter to
incinerate in a streak of light known as a meteor. If the
meteoroid does not burn up completely, what's left strikes
Earth's surface and is called a meteorite. One of the best places
to look for meteorites is the ice cap of Antarctica.

     Of all the meteorites examined, 92.8 percent are composed of
silicate (stone), and 5.7 percent are composed of iron and
nickel; the rest are a mixture of the three materials. Stony
meteorites are the hardest to identify since they look very much
like terrestrial rocks.

     Since asteroids are material from the very early solar
system, scientists are interested in their composition.
Spacecraft that have flown through the asteroid belt have found
that the belt is really quite empty and that asteroids are
separated by very large distances.

     Current and future missions will fly by selected asteroids
for closer examination. The Galileo Orbiter, launched by NASA in
October 1989, will investigate main-belt asteroids on its way to
Jupiter. The Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) and Cassini
missions will also study these far-flung objects. Scheduled for
launch in the latter part of the 1990s, the CRAF and Cassini
missions are a collaborative project of NASA, the European Space
Agency and the federal space agencies of Germany and Italy, as
well as the United States Air Force and the Department of Energy.
One day, space factories will mine the asteroids for raw
materials.
     

Jupiter

     Beyond Mars and the asteroid belt, in the outer regions of
our solar system, lie the giant planets of Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus and Neptune. In 1972, NASA dispatched the first of four
spacecraft slated to conduct the initial surveys of these
colossal worlds of gas and their moons of ice and rock. Jupiter
was the first port of call.

     Pioneer 10, which lifted off from Kennedy Space Center in
March 1972, was the first spacecraft to penetrate the asteroid
belt and travel to the outer regions of the solar system. In
December 1973, it returned the first close-up images of Jupiter,
flying within 132,252 kilometers (82,178 miles) of the planet's
banded cloud tops. Pioneer 11 followed a year later. Voyagers 1
and 2 were launched in the summer of 1977 and returned
spectacular photographs of Jupiter and its family of satellites
during flybys in 1979.

     These travelers found Jupiter to be a whirling ball of
liquid hydrogen and helium, topped with a colorful atmosphere
composed mostly of gaseous hydrogen and helium. Ammonia ice
crystals form white Jovian clouds. Sulfur compounds (and perhaps
phosphorus) may produce the brown and orange hues that
characterize Jupiter's atmosphere.

     It is likely that methane, ammonia, water and other gases
react to form organic molecules in the regions between the
planet's frigid cloud tops and the warmer hydrogen ocean lying
below. Because of Jupiter's atmospheric dynamics, however, these
organic compounds -- if they exist -- are probably short-lived.

     The Great Red Spot has been observed for centuries through
telescopes on Earth. This hurricane-like storm in Jupiter's
atmosphere is more than twice the size of our planet. As a
high-pressure region, the Great Red Spot spins in a direction
opposite to that of low-pressure storms on Jupiter; it is
surrounded by swirling currents that rotate around the spot and
are sometimes consumed by it. The Great Red Spot might be a
million years old.

     Our spacecraft detected lightning in Jupiter's upper
atmosphere and observed auroral emissions similar to Earth's
northern lights at the Jovian polar regions. Voyager 1 returned
the first images of a faint, narrow ring encircling Jupiter.

     Largest of the solar system's planets, Jupiter rotates at a
dizzying pace -- once every 9 hours 55 minutes 30 seconds. The
massive planet takes almost 12 Earth years to complete a journey
around the Sun. With 16 known moons, Jupiter is something of a
miniature solar system.

     A new mission to Jupiter -- the Galileo Project -- is under
way. After a six- year cruise that takes the Galileo Orbiter once
past Venus, twice past Earth and the Moon and once past two
asteroids, the spacecraft will drop an atmospheric probe into
Jupiter's cloud layers and relay data back to Earth. The Galileo
Orbiter will spend two years circling the planet and flying close
to Jupiter's large moons, exploring in detail what the two
Pioneers and two Voyagers revealed.
     

Galilean Satellites

     In 1610, Galileo Galilei aimed his telescope at Jupiter and
spotted four points of light orbiting the planet. For the first
time, humans had seen the moons of another world. In honor of
their discoverer, these four bodies would become known as the
Galilean satellites or moons. But Galileo might have happily
traded this honor for one look at the dazzling photographs
returned by the Voyager spacecraft as they flew past these
planet-sized satellites.

     One of the most remarkable findings of the Voyager mission
was the presence of active volcanoes on the Galilean moon Io.
Volcanic eruptions had never before been observed on a world
other than Earth. The Voyager cameras identified at least nine
active volcanoes on Io, with plumes of ejected material extending
as far as 280 kilometers (175 miles) above the moon's surface.

     Io's pizza-colored terrain, marked by orange and yellow
hues, is probably the result of sulfur-rich materials brought to
the surface by volcanic activity. Volcanic activity on this
satellite is the result of tidal flexing caused by the
gravitational tug-of-war between Io, Jupiter and the other three
Galilean moons.

     Europa, approximately the same size as our Moon, is the
brightest Galilean satellite. The moon's surface displays a
complex array of streaks, indicating the crust has been
fractured. Caught in a gravitational tug-of-war like Io, Europa
has been heated enough to cause its interior ice to melt --
apparently producing a liquid-water ocean. This ocean is covered
by an ice crust that has formed where water is exposed to the
cold of space. Europa's core is made of rock that sank to its
center.

     Like Europa, the other two Galilean moons -- Ganymede and
Callisto -- are worlds of ice and rock. Ganymede is the largest
satellite in the solar system -- larger than the planets Mercury
and Pluto. The satellite is composed of about 50 percent water or
ice and the rest rock. Ganymede's surface has areas of different
brightness, indicating that, in the past, material oozed out of
the moon's interior and was deposited at various locations on the
surface.

     Callisto, only slightly smaller than Ganymede, has the
lowest density of any Galilean satellite, suggesting that large
amounts of water are part of its composition. Callisto is the
most heavily cratered object in the solar system; no activity
during its history has erased old craters except more impacts.

     Detailed studies of all the Galilean satellites will be
performed by the Galileo Orbiter.
     

Saturn

     No planet in the solar system is adorned like Saturn. Its
exquisite ring system is unrivaled. Like Jupiter, Saturn is
composed mostly of hydrogen. But in contrast to the vivid colors
and wild turbulence found in Jovian clouds, Saturn's atmosphere
has a more subtle, butterscotch hue, and its markings are muted
by high-altitude haze. Given Saturn's somewhat placid-looking
appearance, scientists were surprised at the high-velocity
equatorial jet stream that blows some 1,770 kilometers (1,100
miles) per hour.

     Three American spacecraft have visited Saturn. Pioneer 11
sped by the planet and its moon Titan in September 1979,
returning the first close-up images. Voyager 1 followed in
November 1980, sending back breathtaking photographs that
revealed for the first time the complexities of Saturn's ring
system and moons. Voyager 2 flew by the planet and its moons in
August 1981.

     The rings are composed of countless low-density particles
orbiting individually around Saturn's equator at progressive
distances from the cloud tops. Analysis of spacecraft radio waves
passing through the rings showed that the particles vary widely
in size, ranging from dust to house-sized boulders. The rings are
bright because they are mostly ice and frosted rock.

     The rings might have resulted when a moon or a passing body
ventured too close to Saturn. The unlucky object would have been
torn apart by great tidal forces on its surface and in its
interior. Or the object may not have been fully formed to begin
with and disintegrated under the influence of Saturn's gravity. A
third possibility is that the object was shattered by collisions
with larger objects orbiting the planet.

     Unable either to form into a moon or to drift away from each
other, individual ring particles appear to be held in place by
the gravitational pull of Saturn and its satellites. These
complex gravitational interactions form the thousands of ringlets
that make up the major rings.

     Radio emissions quite similar to the static heard on an AM
car radio during an electrical storm were detected by the Voyager
spacecraft. These emissions are typical of lightning but are
believed to be coming from Saturn's ring system rather than its
atmosphere, where no lightning was observed. As they had at
Jupiter, the Voyagers saw a version of Earth's auroras near
Saturn's poles.

     The Voyagers discovered new moons and found several
satellites that share the same orbit. We learned that some moons
shepherd ring particles, maintaining Saturn's rings and the gaps
in the rings. Saturn's 18th moon was discovered in 1990 from
images taken by Voyager 2 in 1981. 

     Voyager 1 determined that Titan has a nitrogen-based
atmosphere with methane and argon -- one more like Earth's in
composition than the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Mars and
Venus. Titan's surface temperature of -179 degrees Celsius (-290
degrees Fahrenheit) implies that there might be water-ice islands
rising above oceans of ethane-methane liquid or sludge.
Unfortunately, Voyager's cameras could not penetrate the moon's
dense clouds.

     Continuing photochemistry from solar radiation may be
converting Titan's methane to ethane, acetylene and -- in
combination with nitrogen -- hydrogen cyanide. The latter
compound is a building block of amino acids. These conditions may
be similar to the atmospheric conditions of primeval Earth
between three and four billion years ago. However, Titan's
atmospheric temperature is believed to be too low to permit
progress beyond this stage of organic chemistry.

     The exploration of Saturn will continue with the Cassini
mission. The Cassini spacecraft will orbit the planet and will
also deploy a probe called Huygens, which will be dropped into
Titan's atmosphere and fall to the surface. Cassini will use the
probe as well as radar to peer through Titan's clouds and will
spend years examining the Saturnian system.
     

Uranus

     In January 1986, four and a half years after visiting
Saturn, Voyager 2 completed the first close-up survey of the
Uranian system. The brief flyby revealed more information about
Uranus and its retinue of icy moons than had been gleaned from
ground observations since the planet's discovery over two
centuries ago by the English astronomer William Herschel.

     Uranus, third largest of the planets, is an oddball of the
solar system. Unlike the other planets (with the exception of
Pluto), this giant lies tipped on its side with its north and
south poles alternately facing the sun during an 84-year swing
around the solar system. During Voyager 2's flyby, the south pole
faced the Sun. Uranus might have been knocked over when an
Earth-sized object collided with it early in the life of the
solar system.

     Voyager 2 found that Uranus' magnetic field does not follow
the usual north-south axis found on the other planets. Instead,
the field is tilted 60 degrees and offset from the planet's
center, a phenomenon that on Earth would be like having one
magnetic pole in New York City and the other in the city of
Djakarta, on the island of Java in Indonesia.

     Uranus' atmosphere consists mainly of hydrogen, with some 12
percent helium and small amounts of ammonia, methane and water
vapor. The planet's blue color occurs because methane in its
atmosphere absorbs all other colors. Wind speeds range up to 580
kilometers (360 miles) per hour, and temperatures near the cloud
tops average -221 degrees Celsius (-366 degrees Fahrenheit).

     Uranus' sunlit south pole is shrouded in a kind of
photochemical "smog" believed to be a combination of acetylene,
ethane and other sunlight-generated chemicals. Surrounding the
planet's atmosphere and extending thousands of kilometers into
space is a mysterious ultraviolet sheen known as "electroglow."

     Approximately 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) below Uranus'
cloud tops, there is thought to be a scalding ocean of water and
dissolved ammonia some 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) deep.
Beneath this ocean is an Earth-sized core of heavier materials.

     Voyager 2 discovered 10 new moons, 16-169 kilometers (10-105
miles) in diameter, orbiting Uranus. The five previously known --
Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon -- range in size from
520 to 1,610 kilometers (323 to 1,000 miles) across. Representing
a geological showcase, these five moons are half-ice, half-rock
spheres that are cold and dark and show evidence of past
activity, including faulting and ice flows.

     The most remarkable of Uranus' moons is Miranda. Its surface
features high cliffs as well as canyons, crater-pocked plains and
winding valleys. The sharp variations in terrain suggest that,
after the moon formed, it was smashed apart by a collision with
another body -- an event not unusual in our solar system, which
contains many objects that have impact craters or are fragments
from large impacts. What is extraordinary is that Miranda
apparently reformed with some of the material that had been in
its interior exposed on its surface.

     Uranus was thought to have nine dark rings; Voyager 2 imaged
11. In contrast to Saturn's rings, which are composed of bright
particles, Uranus' rings are primarily made up of dark,
boulder-sized chunks.
     

Neptune

     Voyager 2 completed its 12-year tour of the solar system
with an investigation of Neptune and the planet's moons. On
August 25, 1989, the spacecraft swept to within 4,850 kilometers
(3,010 miles) of Neptune and then flew on to the moon Triton.
During the Neptune encounter it became clear that the planet's
atmosphere was more active than Uranus'. 

     Voyager 2 observed the Great Dark Spot, a circular storm the
size of Earth, in Neptune's atmosphere. Resembling Jupiter's
Great Red Spot, the storm spins counterclockwise and moves
westward at almost 1,200 kilometers (745 miles) per hour. Voyager
2 also noted a smaller dark spot and a fast-moving cloud dubbed
the "Scooter," as well as high-altitude clouds over the main
hydrogen and helium cloud deck. The highest wind speeds of any
planet were observed, up to 2,400 kilometers (1,500 miles) per
hour.

     Like the other giant planets, Neptune has a gaseous hydrogen
and helium upper layer over a liquid interior. The planet's core
contains a higher percentage of rock and metal than those of the
other gas giants. Neptune's distinctive blue appearance, like
Uranus' blue color, is due to atmospheric methane.

     Neptune's magnetic field is tilted relative to the planet's
spin axis and is not centered at the core. This phenomenon is
similar to Uranus' magnetic field and suggests that the fields of
the two giants are being generated in an area above the cores,
where the pressure is so great that liquid hydrogen assumes the
electrical properties of a metal. Earth's magnetic field, on the
other hand, is produced by its spinning metallic core and is only
slightly tilted and offset relative to its center.

     Voyager 2 also shed light on the mystery of Neptune's rings.
Observations from Earth indicated that there were arcs of
material in orbit around the giant planet. It was not clear how
Neptune could have arcs and how these could be kept from
spreading out into even, unclumped rings. Voyager 2 detected
these arcs, but they were, in fact, part of thin, complete rings.
A number of small moons could explain the arcs, but such bodies
were not spotted.

     Astronomers had identified the Neptunian moons Triton in
1846 and Nereid in 1949. Voyager 2 found six more. One of the new
moons -- Proteus -- is actually larger than Nereid, but since
Proteus orbits close to Neptune, it was lost in the planet's
glare for observers on Earth.

      Triton circles Neptune in a retrograde orbit in under six
days. Tidal forces on Triton are causing it to spiral slowly
towards the planet. In 10 to 100 million years (a short time in
astronomical terms), the moon will be so close that Neptunian
gravity will tear it apart, forming a spectacular ring to
accompany the planet's modest current rings.

     Triton's landscape is as strange and unexpected as those of
Io and Miranda. The moon has more rock than its counterparts at
Saturn and Uranus. Triton's mantle is probably composed of
water-ice, but the moon's crust is a thin veneer of nitrogen and
methane. The moon shows two dramatically different types of
terrain: the so-called "cantaloupe" terrain and a receding ice
cap. 

     Dark streaks appear on the ice cap. These streaks are the
fallout from geyser-like volcanic vents that shoot nitrogen gas
and dark, fine-grained particles to heights of 2 to 8 kilometers
(1 to 5 miles). Triton's thin atmosphere, only 1/70,000th as
thick as Earth's, has winds that carry the dark particles and
deposit them as streaks on the ice cap -- the coldest surface yet
found in the solar system (-235 degrees Celsius, -391 degrees
Fahrenheit). Triton might be more like Pluto than any other
object spacecraft have so far visited.
     

Pluto

     Pluto is the most distant of the planets, yet the
eccentricity of its orbit periodically carries it inside
Neptune's orbit, where it has been since 1979 and where it will
remain until March 1999. Pluto's orbit is also highly inclined --
tilted 17 degrees to the orbital plane of the other planets.

     Discovered in 1930, Pluto appears to be little more than a
celestial snowball. The planet's diameter is calculated to be
approximately 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles), only two-thirds the
size of our Moon. Ground-based observations indicate that Pluto's
surface is covered with methane ice and that there is a thin
atmosphere that may freeze and fall to the surface as the planet
moves away from the Sun. Observations also show that Pluto's spin
axis is tipped by 122 degrees. 

     The planet has one known satellite, Charon, discovered in
1978. Charon's surface composition is different from Pluto's: the
moon appears to be covered with water-ice rather than methane
ice. Its orbit is gravitationally locked with Pluto, so both
bodies always keep the same hemisphere facing each other. Pluto's
and Charon's rotational period and Charon's period of revolution
are all 6.4 Earth days. 

     Although no spacecraft have ever visited Pluto, NASA is
currently exploring the possibility of such a mission.
     

Comets

     The outermost members of the solar system occasionally pay a
visit to the inner planets. As asteroids are the rocky and
metallic remnants of the formation of the solar system, comets
are the icy debris from that dim beginning and can survive only
far from the Sun. Most comet nuclei reside in the Oort Cloud, a
loose swarm of objects in a halo beyond the planets and reaching
perhaps halfway to the nearest star.

     Comet nuclei orbit in this frozen abyss until they are
gravitationally perturbed into new orbits that carry them close
to the Sun. As a nucleus falls inside the orbits of the outer
planets, the volatile elements of which it is made gradually
warm; by the time the nucleus enters the region of the inner
planets, these volatile elements are boiling. The nucleus itself
is irregular and only a few miles across, and is made principally
of water-ice with methane and ammonia -- materials very similar
to those composing the moons of the giant planets.

     As these materials boil off of the nucleus, they form a coma
or cloud-like "head" that can measure tens of thousands of
kilometers across. The coma grows as the comet gets closer to the
Sun. The stream of charged particles coming from the Sun pushes
on this cloud, blowing it back like a flag in the wind and giving
rise to the comet's "tails." Gases and ions are blown directly
back from the nucleus, but dust particles are pushed more slowly.
As the nucleus continues in its orbit, the dust particles are
left behind in a curved arc.

     Both the gas and dust tails point away from the Sun; in
effect, the comet chases its tails as it recedes from the Sun.
The tails can reach 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) in
length, but the total amount of material contained in this
dramatic display would fit in an ordinary suitcase. Comets --
from the Latin cometa, meaning "long-haired" -- are essentially
dramatic light shows.

     Some comets pass through the solar system only once, but
others have their orbits gravitationally modified by a close
encounter with one of the giant outer planets. These latter
visitors can enter closed elliptical orbits and repeatedly return
to the inner solar system.

     Halley's Comet is the most famous example of a relatively
short period comet, returning on an average of once every 76
years and orbiting from beyond Neptune to within Venus' orbit.
Confirmed sightings of the comet go back to 240 B.C. This regular
visitor to our solar system is named for Sir Edmond Halley,
because he plotted the comet's orbit and predicted its return,
based on earlier sightings and Newtonian laws of motion. His name
became part of astronomical lore when, in 1759, the comet
returned on schedule. Unfortunately, Sir Edmond did not live to
see it.

     A comet can be very prominent in the sky if it passes
comparatively close to Earth. Unfortunately, on its most recent
appearance, Halley's Comet passed no closer than 62.4 million
kilometers (38.8 million miles) from our world. The comet was
visible to the naked eye, especially for viewers in the southern
hemisphere, but it was not spectacular. Comets have been so
bright, on rare occasions, that they were visible during daytime.
Historically, comet sightings have been interpreted as bad omens
and have been artistically rendered as daggers in the sky.

     The Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) spacecraft will
become the first traveler to fly close to a comet nucleus and
remain in proximity to it as they both approach the Sun. CRAF
will observe the nucleus as it becomes active in the growing
sunlight and begins to have its lighter elements boil off and
form a coma and tails. Several spacecraft have flown by comets at
high speed; the first was NASA's International Cometary Explorer
in 1985. An armada of five spacecraft (two Japanese, two Soviet
and the Giotto spacecraft from the European Space Agency) flew by
Halley's Comet in 1986.
     

Conclusion

     Despite their efforts to peer across the vast distances of
space through an obscuring atmosphere, scientists of the past had
only one body they could study closely -- Earth. But since 1959,
spaceflight through the solar system has lifted the veil on our
neighbors in space. 

     We have learned more about our solar system and its members
than anyone had in the previous thousands of years. Our automated
spacecraft have traveled to the Moon and to all the planets
beyond our world except Pluto; they have observed moons as large
as small planets, flown by comets and sampled the solar
environment. Astronomy books now include detailed pictures of
bodies that were only smudges in the largest telescopes for
generations. We are lucky to be alive now to see these strange
and beautiful places and objects.

     The knowledge gained from our journeys through the solar
system has redefined traditional Earth sciences like geology and
meteorology and spawned an entirely new discipline called
comparative planetology. By studying the geology of planets,
moons, asteroids and comets, and comparing differences and
similarities, we are learning more about the origin and history
of these bodies and the solar system as a whole.

     We are also gaining insight into Earth's complex weather
systems. By seeing how weather is shaped on other worlds and by
investigating the Sun's activity and its influence throughout the
solar system, we can better understand climatic conditions and
processes on Earth.

     We will continue to learn and benefit as our automated
spacecraft explore our neighborhood in space. One current mission
is mapping Venus; others are flying between worlds and will reach
the Sun and Jupiter after complex trajectory adjustments. Future
missions are planned for Mars, Saturn, a comet and the asteroid
belt.

     We can also look forward to the time when humans will once
again set foot on an alien world. Although astronauts have not
been back to the Moon since December 1972, plans are being
formulated for our return to the lunar landscape and for the
human exploration of Mars and even the establishment of martian
outposts. One day, taking a holiday may mean spending a week at a
lunar base or a martian colony!

- end -
     

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61436
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)


Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
no extra MMU's.   

WHy not do this?

	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.

Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.

If NASA  could build Mercury in 13 months,  they should be able to make
an SMT in 9.   

How much would it need?

Guidance package.  Use a  Voyager spare.   

Thruster gear,  Use H2O2,  or LOX/LH.

Bus  Use a Commsat.

Grapple fixture.   Use a stripped down Canadarm.

Comms package.   SPare  X-band  omni  gear.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61437
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 04/29/93
From: simon@otago.ac.nz (The Arch-Deviant)

In article <29APR199321594919@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> 2.  On April 23, a cruise science Memory Readout (MRO) was performed for the
> Magnetometer (MAG) instrument.  Analysis indicates the data was received
> properly.

Am I correct in assuming that the science instruments buffer their acquired
data in onboard RAM, which is then downloaded upon receipt of the MRO command?

Simon Brady                 You don't need a lot of fancy hardware for
University of Otago         Virtual Reality - just a walkman and an
Dunedin, New Zealand        attitude

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61438
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr29.201036.11256@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
>order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
>items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
>retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand...

No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
to the array-flapping problems.

The retrieval problems are exactly as stated:  it would be costly, would
involve extensive downtime (and the worry of someone finding a reason not
to re-launch it), and would unnecessarily expose the telescope to a lot
of mechanical stresses and possibilities for contamination.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61439
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Teflon Development. 

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) Pontificated: 
>
>Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
>bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
>needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
>gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
>inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.
>
To split a split hair, I believe that teflon (-CF4- monomer) was
"discovered" by accident when someone I don't remember
found what he thought was a liquid (or gas?) had turned to a
solid...

It just happend to fit the bill for the above use...

I'm crossposting to sci.materials so perhaps someone in the know
might elaborate...


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |   
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61440
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <1rnaih$jvj@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> 
> Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
> the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
> has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
> no extra MMU's.   
> 
> WHy not do this?
> 
> 	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
> 
> Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
> clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
> 
> If NASA  could build Mercury in 13 months,  they should be able to make
> an SMT in 9.   
> 
> How much would it need?
> 
> Guidance package.  Use a  Voyager spare.   
> 
> Thruster gear,  Use H2O2,  or LOX/LH.
> 
> Bus  Use a Commsat.
> 
> Grapple fixture.   Use a stripped down Canadarm.
> 
> Comms package.   SPare  X-band  omni  gear.
> 
> pat


And then why not build a space dock..
Either inflated or not.. some place a crew can work on a item without having to 
wear much of the items they have to for spae.. such as most of he bulky suit..
More idea to come..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61441
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Deployable Space Dock..

Idea for repair of satellites:

Warning I am getting creative again:

Why not build a inflatable space dock.

Basically deploy one side of the space dock (using a scissor shaped structure,
saw it on beyond 2000), then maneuer the side to next to the satellite and then
move the rest of the dock around the satellite and seal it..
The inflate the dock with a gas (is does not have to be oxygen, just neeeds to
be non-flameble, non-damaging to the satellite and abel to maintain heat),
thenheat the space dock (for the astronaut who will be working onthe satellite
to be able to not have to wear the normal bulky space suit, but a much striped
down own).. 

I know this might take a slot of work or not??? Or just to plain wierd, but
ideas need to be thought of, for where is tomorrow, but in the imagination of
the present..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61442
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Private Support of Exploration (Russian America)

Commericial support for exploration examples:

Also much if Baranovs exploration and Utilization of Alaska (Russian America,
also included parts of Washington state, Oregon, and N. California) was doen by
private funds (yes some royal governmental funds at times..)..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61443
From: rw@astro.Princeton.EDU (Ralph A.M.J. Wijers)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.


I feel compelled to complain: the statement that recent observations
rule out merging neutron stars as sources of gamma-ray bursts is
utterly false, even though it is popular enough to make it to
BATSE press releases.
The idea behind the statement is as follows: 
     "if you smack two neutron
      stars together, or have a neutron star be gobbled up by a black hole,
      a lot of energy is released, enough for a gamma-ray burst at a
      cosmological distance. But, so the reasoning continues, this energy 
      is released below a lot of matter, so the radiation becomes
      thermalized and you expect to see roughly a blackbody spectrum.
      The observed spectra are strongly non-thermal, so this model must
      be wrong."
As so often, the fault lies with the imagination of the person who
was trying to prove the model wrong rather than with the model. It
may be that the initial energy release is not seen as a gamma-ray
burst, but the 'fireball' of energy and matter that is created
may spew out a relativistic flow. When this slams into the surrounding 
medium, a strong flux of non-thermal gamma rays results, which may
carry off a substantial fraction of the initial total energy. All
this is not my idea: it is in a series of papers by Martin Rees,
Peter Meszaros (sorry for the missing accents:-) and co-workers.
It is certainly not a complete model, but it may well be the best one
around (summing over all proposed distance scales). An alternative
proposal for what creates the initial fireball, by the way, is the 
so-called 'failed supernovae' scenario by Stan Woosley, in which
a very massive star at the end of its life collapses to a black
hole. If the stellar core was rotating, part of the infalling matter
will be temporarily halted because it is supported by centrifugal
force, and form a very dense neutron torus that accretes onto the
black hole. This beast may spew out a jet along the rotation axis,
which again constitutes relativistic flow. The rate of such
events may be much higher than that of neutron star mergers,
but the flux may be more strongly beamed, so that the net rate
of bursts observed on Earth stays the same between the two
scenarios, but the energy released per event can be a lot less
in the failed supernova scenario.

On another note: I do believe that the distance scale must 
ultimately be resolved via some classical astronomical method
such as finding counterparts to the bursts at other wavelengths,
or finding a definitive signature of some known class of
objects in the distribution of positions and fluxes. Theorists
have historically not been too successfull in finding the
distance of any object by proving that there is only one
possible way in which the object can work, and therefore
it *must* be so-and-so.

Ralph Wijers


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61444
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:

>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> >1.	Calculators
>> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
>> 
>> I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
>> many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
>> I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
>> a good thing.
>> 
>> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
>> and of itself.

>I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is
>inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it
>cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether
>something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become
>increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!). 
>They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want
>something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.

I think to some extent this is a case of stooping to their level.  You assume
that the general public "can't handle the truth" and then, based on this 
assumption, go for the fluff arguments.  Then someone, who can understand a
good argument, comes along and asks "why don't you just develop the spinoffs?"
or "why can't we just get our spinoffs from some other program, like the
military?"  There are some good arguments for space development without relying
on its side effects.  I'm not ignoring the value of spinoffs.  I simply think
that the general public deserves more credit than you give them.

>BTW: don't forget Velcro...

And if you're going to use spinoffs you better make darn sure you are right.
Teflon has been around since before NASA.  As I understand it, Velcro was 
conceptualized by a french doctor who went walking in the woods and took the
trouble to wonder how burrs stick to your clothes.  Certainly velcro was 
available on hiking equipment by the early to mid sixties.  I would need to 
see some good evidence before I believe that either of these would not be here
today without NASA.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61445
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

Being wierd again, so be warned:

Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??
It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
without having much of the solar system to worry about..

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61446
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
|
|	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
|Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
|the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
|weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
>bay.
>

a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,
and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out
on the HST in the next 9 months.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61447
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
|prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
|
|>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
|>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
|>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
|>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
|>|much energy in one second? 
|>>                                                -jeremy
|
|>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.
|
|It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
|in the interstellar medium.)
|


How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection?
and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61448
From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick Roeber)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu>, STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
> I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
> For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
> dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
> wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
> that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

Do you know of the world-wide-web?  This is a global hypertext (well, 
hypermedia) network running on the internet.  One of the nice things
about it is that is understands and incorporates virtually all of the
other systems being used, like WAIS, Gopher, FTP, Archie, etc.  It
is usually quite easy to add existing resources to the web.

If you'd like to explore, I'd suggest getting the XMosaic program,
written at the NCSA.  It's an X-windows web browser, and is pretty
slick.  It can understand and cope with more than text: gif, jpeg, mpeg,
audio, etc.  There are other browsers, including a text-mode browser
for people stuck on a text terminal, but I'm most familliar with mosaic.

Under the page "The World-Wide Web Virtual Library: Subject Catalogue"
(this is available under the Documents menu in mosaic, or by any
browser via the URL 
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/Overview.html )
there is a subject "Space Science."  Currently this points to a
page under construction, with only the NASA JPL FTP archive.  I've
volunteered to take over this page, and in fact I have a replacement
with all sorts of information pointers (mostly gleaned from the
sci.space FAQ).  As soon as the overworked "Subject Catalogue" 
maintainer switches the "Space Science" pointer, it'll be visible.

I'll post a short note when this happens.

-- 
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 20 82 99
--  
"Sorry, baby, I can't take you to the pizza joint tonight, I've got to go
back to the lab and split the atom." -- Ayn Rand, "What is Romanticism?"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61449
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu> STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
>I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
>For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
>dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
>wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
>that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.

Robert McElwaine is the authoritative source of scientific data on Internet.
He can be reached alt.fan.mc-elwaine...

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      "I post, therefore I ARMM"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61450
From: devdjn@space.alcbel.be
Subject: Re: Statement by NASA Administrator Daniel S. G

If this man Clark is a NASA administrator then god save NASA. Of course
the Shuttles record is unrivaled !  There is only one Shuttle. Furthermore,
there is only likely to be one Shuttle now that Hermes and Boron are 
effectively cancelled.

These officials should spend more of their time explaining to their
European and Asian partners how we are expected to believe in them
when their paymasters change their minds on major international
projects everytime a new US administration takes office (considering
the major impacts this has on the European and Asian (Japanese)
industry). It is also appreciated how this affects American
industry. I am of course talking about Space Stattion Freedom.

---
Dennis Newport,                  email: devdjn@space.alcbel.be
Alcatel Bell Telephone,
Berkenrodelei 33,                phone: (+32) 3/829.5488
2660 Hoboken,
Belgium.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61451
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?

In article <1993Apr29.162132.28366@hemlock.cray.com> bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski) writes:
>
>
>There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:
>
>1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we
>determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?
>
   Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few
years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in
Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The
State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien
invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens),
the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was
very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything
intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a
philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I
believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral
person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a
person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.

>2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will
>we expend resources from earth to help them?
>
   I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The
human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does
underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The
usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the
culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.

>3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable,
>what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought
>back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?
>
>-- 
>Have a day,
>
>  @   @
>   ( )     bobo

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61452
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> |
> |	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
> |Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
> |the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
> |weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
>>bay.
>>
> 
> a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,

I do not understand what you are saying here.  What is improved, what 
is Significant, and what does this have to do with carrying more 
equipment on a servicing mission?  Also, as implied by other posters, why 
do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway?  Maybe you have 
something here, but could you please clarify it for us on the net? 

> and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
> so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
> array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out

From what I've heard, the motors are fine - it is one of the two 
sets of electronics that control the motors that needs a fix.  The 
motors and electronics are separate pieces of hardware.  I expect 
to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. 

> on the HST in the next 9 months.
> 
> pat
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61453
From: atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu>, STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
-| I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
-| For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
-| dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
-| wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
-| that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.
-| 
-| THANKS!
-| 
-|   KEITH MALINOWSKI
-|   STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
-|   P.O. Box 2472
-|   Stockton State College
-|   Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Try doing a keyword search under Gopher using Veronica or accessing a 
World Wide Web server. Also finger yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu for a list
of Internet resources which includes 2-3 sites with Space-specific 
information. I am sure Ron Baalke will have told you about what is
available at JPL etc..

	best regards
		Ata <(|)>.
-- 
| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine,        |
|               Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND                  |
| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk  |
| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |
| UUCP/Usenet                       atae%spva.ph.ic@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk        |

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61454
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission?

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> Being wierd again, so be warned:

Being what?  Oh, _weird_.  OK, I'm warned!

> Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
> keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

Keep watch for what?

> How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
> around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??

Oh, the several tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars it would cost
to "record things" there.  And I'd prefer a manned mission, anyway.

> It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
> objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
> without having much of the solar system to worry about..

We've already got a pretty good platform to "scan" the solar
system, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy without having
much of the solar system to worry about..
Care to guess where it is?

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61455
From: tff@zeno.ds.boeing.com (Terry F Figurelle)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?

In article MJu@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
>
>I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere
>unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only
>about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe --
>and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
>-- 
>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

I remember a physic prof. who talked about scaling a cue ball to Earth size.
Its was significantly less spherical that the Earth!

---
Terry F Figurelle			Boeing Defense & Space Group
email: tff@plato.ds.boeing.com		PO BOX 3999, Mail Stop 6J-EA
phone: 206-394-3115 fax:206-394-4300	Seattle, WA 98124-2499

-- 
Terry F Figurelle			Boeing Defense & Space Group
email: tff@plato.ds.boeing.com		PO BOX 3999, Mail Stop 6J-EA
phone: 206-394-3115 fax:206-394-4300	Seattle, WA 98124-2499

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61456
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: U.S. Government and Technolgy Investment

People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to
have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and
technology.  Basically, the U.S. Government has gotten into the role of
supporting research which private industry finds too expensive or too
long-term.  

(Historically, this role for the U.S. Gov't was forced upon it because
of socialism in other countries.  In order for U.S.  industries to
compete with government-subsidized foreign competitors, the U.S. Gov't
has taken on the role of subisizing big-ticket or long-lead R&D.)

As a Republican, I abhor the necessity for our Government to involve
itself in technology this way.  I believe that market forces should
drive technology, and the world would be a better place for it.  But
the whole world would have to implement this concept simultaneously, or
some countries would have subsidized R&D, while others would not.  So
the U.S. must subsidize because everybody else does.  (This sounds a
lot like the farm subsidies arguments behind our GATT negotiations,
doesn't it?)

But this role of Government subsidies is antithetical to
cost-effectiveness.  The general idea is to spend money on new
technology, and thereby maintain and promote our technological culture,
despite the forces in the business world (like the dreaded quarterly
earnings report) which erode the ability of U.S. industry to invest in
new technology.  And since our goal is to spend money, it makes little
sense to try to save money.

Of course, we could always spend our money more wisely, but EVERYBODY
disagrees about that the wisdom should be.  

It's interesting to note that some of our best tools for cost control
available in industry today were derived from Government projects.
GANTT charts, CP/M, and most of the modern scheduling software comes
from DoD projects and their contractors.  The construction industry
has taken these tools to the core of their businesses; every large
construction project now uses these tools.  

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

     "A scientist can discover a new star, but he cannot make one.
      He would have to ask an engineer to do that."
        -- Gordon L. Glegg, American Engineer, 1969

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61457
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>to the array-flapping problems.


Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick release.

one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61458
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
>of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
>is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance...
>... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance...

Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is
possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there
is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced
by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of
the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator
where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest-
without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did
it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation,
and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61459
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
|> |
|> |	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster.
|> |Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of
|> |the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own 
|> |weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload
|>>bay.
|>>
|> 
|> a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,
|
|I do not understand what you are saying here.  What is improved, what 
|is Significant, and what does this have to do with carrying more 
|equipment on a servicing mission?  Also, as implied by other posters, why 
|do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway?  Maybe you have 
|something here, but could you please clarify it for us on the net? 
|

RIght now the HST sevicing mission is listed as 11 days.  before
it was listed as 9 days.  they just kicked up the number of spacewalks
to 5,  after simulations indicated  that it was not do-able in 4.  

After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.
I know when HST was first flown, it was placed in the Highest
possible Shuttle orbit. 

Now the shuttle can cary a thing called the EDO pallet, or extended
duration orbiter pallet.  It's mostly  LOX/LH for the fuel cells
and RCS gear,  plus more O2  and canisters for the life support
re-breathers.  maybe more nitrogen too.

THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
and Orbiter Duration.   

In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
for a given orbital change.  

From what i understand,  the mass margins on the HST missions are
tight enough they can't even carry extra Suits or MMU's.

Now if they used a small tug,  I would bet,  just a wild guess,
that the savings on amss margin  would allow carrying the
EDO pallet,  extra suits,  more consumables,  parts for the
flaky FGS sensor,  parts for the balky solar  electronics,

and still enough for a double magnum of champagne.

or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
and longer drag life.

|> and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables
|> so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the
|> array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out
|
|From what I've heard, the motors are fine - it is one of the two 
|sets of electronics that control the motors that needs a fix.  The 
|motors and electronics are separate pieces of hardware.  I expect 
|to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. 
|

a
Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
on HST ops.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61460
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

In article <29APR199311425584@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
|In article <1rlrpv$5ta@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
|>Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
|>just a little speculative thinking folks.
|>pat
|Well pat for once I agree with you and I like your first idea that you had.
>IT probably is the gamma ray signature of the warp transitions of interstellar
>spacecraft! :)


Dennis.

	WE agree a lot ,  it's just we don't both post when we agree
on something.  And when we disagree, it tends to be a lot more
noticeable.;-)

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61461
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Subject: HST Antenna OK?

I haven't seen any mention of this in a while, so here goes...

When the Hubble Telescope was first deployed, one of its high gain antennas
was not able to be moved across its full range of motion.  It was suspected
that it had been snagged on a cable or something.  Operational procedures
were modified to work around the problem, and later problems have overshadowed
the HGA problem.

Is there any plan to look at the affected HGA during the HST repair mission,
to determine the cause of its limited range of motion?  Is the affected HGA
still limited, or is it now capable of full range of motion?

--
Steve Derry
<s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61462
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rocket Types

In article <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au> u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer) writes:
>It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
>particles for propolsion.
>The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement...

I'd guess this was a garbled report of the NERVA effort to develop a
solid-core fission rocket (the most mundane type of nuclear rocket).
That was the only advanced-propulsion project that was done on a large
enough scale to be likely to attract news attention.  It *could* be any
number of things -- the description given is awfully vague -- but I'd
put a small bet on NERVA.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61463
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deployable Space Dock..

In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Why not build a inflatable space dock.

If you're doing large-scale satellite servicing, being able to do it in
a pressurized hangar makes considerable sense.  The question is whether
anyone is going to be doing large-scale satellite servicing in the near
future, to the point of justifying development of such a thing.

>...inflate the dock with a gas (is does not have to be oxygen, just neeeds to
>be non-flameble, non-damaging to the satellite and abel to maintain heat)...

You'd almost certainly use air.  Given that you have to pressurize with
*something*, safety considerations strongly suggest making it breathable
(even if the servicing crew is using oxygen masks for normal breathing,
to avoid needing a ventilation system, it's nice if the hangar atmosphere
is breathable in a pinch -- it makes mask functioning much less critical).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61464
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? ...

There would be some point to doing long-term monitoring of things like
particles and fields, not to mention atmospheric phenomena.  However,
there is no particular plan to establish any sort of monitoring network.
To be precise, there is no particular plan, period.  This is a large
part of the problem.  In this context, it's not surprising that unexciting
but useful missions like this get short shrift at budget time.  The closest
approach to any sort of long-term planetary monitoring mission is the
occasional chance to piggyback something like this on top of a flashier
mission like Galileo or Cassini.

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto...

It is most unlikely that there is much happening on Pluto that would be
worth monitoring, and it is a prohibitively difficult mission to fly
without new propulsion technology (something the planetary community
has firmly resisted being the guinea pigs for).  The combined need to
arrive at Pluto within a reasonable amount of time, and then kill nearly
all of the cruise velocity to settle into an orbit, is beyond what can
reasonably be done with current (that is, 1950s-vintage) propulsion.

>It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
>objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
>without having much of the solar system to worry about..

Most of this can be done just about as well from Earth.  The few things
that can't be, can be done better from a Voyager-like spacecraft that is
*not* constrained by the need to enter orbit around a planet.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61465
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
: THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
: and Orbiter Duration.   

: In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
: will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
: thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
: needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
: carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
: less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
: for a given orbital change.  

: From what i understand,  the mass margins on the HST missions are
: tight enough they can't even carry extra Suits or MMU's.

: pat

I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why
the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components
(WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of
tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This
should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the
highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower 
orbit.  

Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity.

--
Steve Derry
<s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61466
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>... Also, as implied by other posters, why 
>do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ...

You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in
low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was
deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason.
It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has
no propulsion system of its own.)  This is an excellent opportunity,
given that there may not be another visit for several years.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61467
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky



In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU>,
richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes: 
>    If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and 
> molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far
> from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS
> and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures
> can range from 40K to 150K.

Interstellar grains are not at all close to blackbodies.  The "large"
grains have sizes of order 0.1 micron and absorb visible light with
fair efficiency.  However, at temperatures below 100 K, 90% of the
thermal emission will be beyond 22 microns, where radiating
efficiency is poor.  (A small antenna cannot easily radiate at long
wavelengths.)  Thus the grains must heat up more in order to radiate
the energy they have absorbed.

Moreover, the IRAS observations had a maximum wavelength of 100
microns.  Grains colder than 30 K will radiate primarily at longer
wavelengths, and IRAS would be relatively insensitive to them.  In
the extreme limit, grains as cold as 5 K will be almost undetectable
by any conceivable observation.

Worse still, IRAS color temperatures are heavily contaminated by a
population of "small" grains.  These grains have only perhaps 50
atoms, and when they are hit by a single photon they heat up to
temperatures of several hundred or 1000 K.  Of course they cool
quickly and then stay cold for a while, but _when they are radiating_
the characteristic temperature is several hundred K.  Even a small
population of these grains can dramatically raise the observed
"average" temperature.

A model for local infrared emission consistent with COBE data has
three components.  These represent scattered radiation from Zodiacal
dust (color temperature 5500 K), thermal emission from Zodiacal dust
(Tc = 280 K), and thermal emission from Galactic dust (Tc=25 K).  At
the ecliptic poles, the emissivities or dilution factors are
respectively 1.9E-13, 4E-8, and 2E-5.  The first two are roughly
doubled in the ecliptic plane.

To find the thermal equilibrium temperature, we add up the dilution
factor times the fourth power of temperature for all components, then
take the fourth root.  In the table below, starlight comes from
Allen's number that stellar emission from the whole sky is equivalent
to 460 zero mag stars with B-V color of 0.75.  No doubt careful work
could do much better.  (The person who suggested starlight had a
dilution factor of E-4 must have been remembering wrong.  We would be
cooked if that were the case.  In any event, the energy density of
starlight comes out about the same as that of the microwave
background, and I believe that to be correct.)

                         Dilution   Temp.   DT^4
Microwave background         1        2.7     53
Galactic dust              2E-5      25        8
Zodiacal dust (emission)   6E-8     280      369
Zodiacal dust (scattering) 3E-13   5500      275
Starlight                  1E-13   5500       92
                                           -----
                                             797

The fourth root of 797 is 5.3 K.  Outside the Solar system, the
result would be 3.5 K.  

I find these results surprising, especially the importance of
Zodiacal dust, but I don't see any serious mistakes.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact lpf@uunet.uu.net

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61468
From: rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
>dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
>public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
>would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

It's public because it belongs to everybody.  It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light.  If they can sell you
or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.
Never mind that taxpaper's money is wasted.  Never mind that the sky is ruined.


Bob Bunge

Greed is Great - Gordon Grekko













Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61469
From: turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner)
Subject: moon image in weather sat image



an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.

pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
details on the moon are viewable.

the moon is not in the 1400UT images.


 george wm turner            turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu   

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61470
From: fennell@well.sf.ca.us (Michael Daniel Fennell)
Subject: SARSAT for tracking payload deployed by tether.



We are interested in constructing a reentry vehicle to be deployed from a
tether attached to an orbiting platform.  This will be a follow on to our
succesful deployment of a 20 kilometer tether on the March 29 flight of
SEDS (Small Expendable Deployment System), which released an instrumented
payload that reentered the earth's atmosphere and burned up over the west
coast of Mexico.  This time we want to make a payload that can be recovered.
We want to build it from "off the shelf" technology so as to do this as
quickly and inexpensively as possible.  We want to be able to track the
payload after it has deployed its parachute.  An idea we have is to put the
same kind of radio beacon on it that is used with SARSATs (Search and Rescue
Satellites).  It would turn on with the opening of the parachute and aid in
tracking.  These beacons are known in the marine industry as EPIRBs
(Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon).  They are rugged (they have to
be to survive a ship wreck!) and cheap.  We have several questions:

1.  What is the world authority regulating the use of SARSAT beacons.  Are
there multiple authorites, i.e. military and civilian?

2.  What are the regulations regarding the use of SARSAT signals.  Can they
be used for one of a kind situations with a long lead time of warning the
relevant authorities, or are they strictly reserved for life threatening
emergencies?

3.  What is the coverage of SARSATS?  Are they in LEO with only intermittant
coverage of a fixed position on the earth, or are they in geosynchronous
orbit?

4.  Is there an industry organization governing the use and manufacture of
these transponders?

Please post replies here or send E-mail to me at:
	fennell@well.sf.ca.us
Thanak you very much for any assistance you can provide.

			-mike fennell


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61471
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <1rrhlo$ajb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: 
> 
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.  

Where did that idea come from?  It's news to me.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61472
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
>
>
>an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
>it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
>the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
>CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
>
>pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
>details on the moon are viewable.

Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
across the clouds.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61473
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>
>...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
>
>>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
>>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>>  - 7 berthing ports
>>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
>
>Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
>a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61474
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Abyss-breathing fluids

In <1993Apr29.192623.11760@cc.ic.ac.uk> atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi) writes:

>"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to 
>breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations 
>required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning 
>fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book.
>I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).

And most definitely read it in conjunction with Heinlein's _Starship
Trooper_.  The two books are radically different viewpoints of the
same basic premises.  I've even heard tell of English classes built
around this.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61475
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:

>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.

Right?  What right?  And don't you mean something more like: It so
typical that the wants of the minority can obstruct the wants of the
majority, no matter how ridiculous those minority wants might be or
what benefits those majority wants might have?

[My sole connection with the project is that I spent a lot of time in
classes at the University of Colorado.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61476
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:

>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.

And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
of the rest of us?

>Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
>for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
>it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
>floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same 
>reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.

And if you want to view that television station, you have to watch the
commercials.  You can't turn them off and still be viewing the
television station.  In other words, if you don't like what you see,
don't look.  There is no 'right' I can think of that you have to force
other people to conform to your idea of aesthetic behaviour.  What's
next, laws regulating how people must dress and look so as to appeal
to your fashion sense, since you have this 'right' of an aesthetic
view? 

> Pat writes:
>George.

>	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
>If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
>a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
>here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
>civil rights.

>I say: 
>	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
>	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
>	discrimination, and violence against others of different
>	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.

Which has what to do with the topic of discussion?

>Pat says:
>If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
>to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
>in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
>know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
>they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
>you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
>In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

>I say:
>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.

Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61477
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In <jgladu-290493130832@128.249.27.63> jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:

>In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
>> and of itself.

>I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
>are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
>its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
>existence of the space program relies upon that money.

I have to agree with Ward.  The problem with your approach is they add
up what you can reasonably claim as 'spin-offs', add up what's been
spent on space, and then come back with something like, "You spent $X
billion for that?  Wouldn't it be better just to spend the money on
direct research and forget all this space stuff?  We could have got
all that stuff a *lot* cheaper that way.  Space is wasteful and
inefficient."

Then they cancel your funding and spend it studying mating rituals of
New Guinea tribesmen or something.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61478
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission? 

In <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

>Being wierd again, so be warned:

>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??
>It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
>objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
>without having much of the solar system to worry about..

Doing this in anything like reasonable time would require more
propulsion capability than we can manage.  You would have to boost to
Pluto and then slow back down.  You could do something like a Hohman
orbit, but I think that would take ridiculous amounts of time (my
Rubber Bible is at home).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61479
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: NASA contributions?

Teflon? A contribution from the space program? Since the French were using
Teflon on household items in the early 1950's, it is unlikely that it was
invented by NASA. As for pacemakers and calculators, again those are
anecdotally connected with NASA.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61480
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

games@max.u.washington.edu  writes:
Re; Response from CoB of Boeing on SSTO ...
>"As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have
>a better answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some
>of our customers about that.  As far as commercialization, that is
>a long ways off.  ...
> Anybody know anything further? Is this really news? Does this
>threaten further work on DC-? ?
  
   Boeing has been looking at several TSTO vehicles and has carried
out extensive conceptual studies of advanced launch systems for some
time.  A good reference on this might be: "Comparison of Propulsion
Options for Advanced Earth-To-Orbit (ETO) Applications (IAF-92-
0639)." by V.A. Weldon and L.E. Fink from Boeing.   The paper
describes a propane-fueled TSTO launch system claimed to achieve
aircraft-like operational efficiencies without the problems
associated with liquid hydrogen fuel.  Basically, it's a high-speed
airplane launching a Hermes-type spaceplane
   The design (the concept is also called "Beta") as laid out in the
paper can launch at least 10,000 pounds into polar orbit, or 20,000
pounds to space station orbit including a crew of eight persons and
life support.  System design reliability is .9995.
   Beta is a 360-foot-long first stage powered by two large ramjets
and 12 high- speed civil transport (HSCT) turbofans.  A 108-foot-
long reusable orbiter is trapeze-mounted in the belly of the first-
stage aircraft, which also could accommodate a longer and heavy
payload on an expendable second stage.
   To launch the orbital vehicle, the first stage takes off like a
normal HSCT and accelerates to Mach 3.  At that point the turbofans,
modified to burn catalyzed JP-7, would shut off and the ramjets,
would take over.  At Mach 5.5 the orbiter or the ELV would swing
out, ignite and proceed to orbit. Both vehicles would land like
aircraft at the conclusion of their respective missions.
   Estimated total weight of the combined configuration at takeoff
is about 1.5 M lbs, roughly equivalanet to a fully loaded An-225.
The orbiter stages weighs about 400,Klbs including 335 Klbs
of LOX and subcooled propane to power two 250 Klbs vacuum thrust
rocket engines. Propellants would be stored at 91 degrees Kelvin,
with the propane in a spherical tank mounted forward of the 15-by-
25-foot cargo bay and the two-seat orbiter crew station. LOX would
be stored aft.  Weldon and Fink claim the key to this design's
success is the structurally efficient airframe and the compact
tankage allowed by the high-density supercooled hydrocarbon fuel.
     The paper compares TSTO design to SSTO design.  They conclude
while a SSTO has a slightly lower recurring cost, a TSTO is easier,
cheaper, and less risky to develop, simpler to build, has greater
safety and mission versatility and doesn't carry the hard-to-handle
and bulky hydrogen fuel. The conlcude "In conjunction with its major
use of airplane type engines and fuel, as well as its inherent self-
ferry capability, it is probably the system most likely to provide
as close to airline-like operations as possible with a practical
configuration, until a single stage airbreather/rocket concept can
be shown to be operationally viable."
  
>Is this really news? Does this threaten further work on DC-?
   Weldon and others at Boeing have been working on TSTO designs for
some time.  I expect this, or a similar concept (perhaps the HTHL
SSTO they proposed for the SDIO SSTO first phase) is being re-
examined as a basis for a bid on the first phase of SpaceLifter.
   Does it threaten DC-???.  Possibly -- There is a set of on-going
studies trying straighten out the government's future space
transportation strategy.  MDC and Boeing (as well as other firms)
are providing data to a joint study team back in DC.  There are
various factions and options vying for attention -- including
shuttle upgrades, shuttle replacement (what was called the "4-2-3"
architecture), SpaceLifter, ELV upgrades, and various advanced
vehicles (ALES, Beta, DC-??, NASP, FSTS, SSTOs of several types,
etc.)  NASA/DOD/DOT are trying to put together a coherent strategy
for future US gov't space transportation systems, and trying to
juggle near-term launch needs (like for DoD and NASA) against
medium-term needs (including commercial considerations), and against
the investment and risk of going to "leap frog" new technologies
like SDIO/SSTO and NASP and Beta.
   It's a heck of a problem.  The worst part of the problem isn't
that there aren't promising ideas and concepts -- there are dozens
of them -- but how they balance cost and risk versus real needs in
the near term.  They should have a draft report in mid-June, with a
final report coming by the end of the fiscal year.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61481
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrhlo$ajb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>>In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>> In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> |> |
.. 
> 
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.

As Ben says - this re-boost idea is all news to us here.  Do you know 
something we don't?  Please supply a source - it would be nice for 
the schedulers of observations to know where the thing is going to 
be.  These altitude numbers are also way off.  

My best source has: 
"Minimum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    573 Kilometers"
"Maximum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    603 Kilometers"
"Delta   ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:      3 Kilometers" 

(PMDB is Proposal Management Data Base - used to schedule observations.) 
..

> In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
> will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
> thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
> needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
> carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
> less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
> for a given orbital change.  
> 

Could you supply some calculations?  You might check some recent 
postings that explained that 'a small booster' as suggested does 
not now exist, so comparing the mass of something that doesn't 
exist to the mass of the OMS fuel seems impossible.  The contamination 
threat also remains.  

.. 
> 
> or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
> The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
> and longer drag life.
> 
  Longer drag life I can understand, but could you explain the 
antenna pointing?  

> Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
> on HST ops.

Tell me about it.  Although the arrays can be (and are) moved perfectly 
well utilizing the second electronics box.  Getting them both working 
is much desireable so as to reclaim redundancy.  

> 
> pat
> 

I don't mean to jump on you - helpful suggestions are always welcome 
and we all know the more ideas the better, but I do want the true 
situation to be described clearly and correctly, lest some get 
confused. 

Regards, 
Wm. Hathaway 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61482
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrjsjINNop7@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes:
> Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
> : and Orbiter Duration.   
> 
.. 
> 
> I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why
> the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components
> (WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of
> tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This
> should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the
> highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower 
> orbit.  
> 
> Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity.
> 
> --
> Steve Derry
> <s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>


One thing to recall.  Putting a satellite as high as possible is one thing. 
Coming back to not only that altitude, but matching the position of it in 
its orbit on a subsequent mission is another thing.  Any misalignment of the 
plane of the orbit during launch or being ahead or behind the target will 
require more fuel to adjust.  This was considered in the original deployment. 

I agree though that the demands on the crew and complexity are stupendous.  
One has to admire how much they are trying to do. 

Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61483
From: wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown)
Subject: Re: Space spinn offs

I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the 
system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.

Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.

My 2 sense worth.

Bill


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61484
From: shag@aero.org (Rob Unverzagt)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <1993Apr30.173625.10139@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
> >
> >an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
> >it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
> >the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
> >CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
> >
> >pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
> >details on the moon are viewable.
> 
> Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
> Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
> across the clouds.

Speaking of which, a paper was out a few years ago about a
weather sat imaging a lunar eclipse -- are those images
uploaded anywhere?  I could dig out the reference if there's interest.

Shag

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61485
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Space spinn offs

In article <1rruis$9do@bigboote.WPI.EDU> wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown) writes:
>From: wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown)
>Subject: Re: Space spinn offs
>Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:27:24 GMT
>I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
>It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the 
>system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.
>
>Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
>enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
>the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
>all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.
>
>My 2 sense worth.
>
>Bill
>

The artifical pacemaker was invented in 1958 by Wilson Greatbatch an
American biomedical engineer. The bill authorizing NASA was signed
in October of 1958 so it is clear that NASA had nothing to do with
the invention of the pacemaker.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61486
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
>the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
>has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
>no extra MMU's.   

Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  

>WHy not do this?

>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.

>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.

Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  

Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less
than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain
and reschedule the EVA's in that time.

More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.


According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61487
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <1993Apr30.170718.1218@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
> 
>>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
> 
> And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
> of the rest of us?
> 
 Let me get this right - sorry, try again.  Let me get this straight - 
well maybe that too is a poor choice of words - someone might think 
I'm pushing a gay agenda.  How about:  let me try to understand this 
by re-phrasing it as an extreme.  I, as a minority of one, have no right 
to a beautiful world.  You, on the other hand have the right to make an 
ugly one because you presume to speak for all the rest.  And I cannot 
complain.  Curious. 

.. 

>>I say:
>>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
> 
> Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
> you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.
> 

And do you want everyone to do as you wish (insist on putting something 
up that will impact everyone for selfish reasons) _without_ any legislation?  
And no one else can even object?  Somehow I think this whole shoving 
contest has gotten way off the track.  I'm ready to let this thread 
die a quick and merciful death. 

> -- 
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.


Wm. Hathaway 
Baltimore MD 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61488
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Single Launch Space Station

In article <C69qA6.J4w.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw)
wrote:
> 
> Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
> >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
> >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
> >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
> >and jettisoned after ET separation.
> 
> Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
> bring them down to use as spares?

Good question....I asked that myself....However, since this option is as
expensive as the Freedom derivative, the issue will likely be moot.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61489
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Long term Human Missions

In article 290493130832@128.249.27.63, jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:
>ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> >1.	Calculators
>> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
>> 
>I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
>are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
>its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
>existence of the space program relies upon that money.
>
>just my $.02
>
>BTW: don't forget Velcro...

at least be honest.  velcro (tm) dates from the 40's.  i have doubts
about everything listed above.  just because it was developed in the
space age, doesn't mean it was a space spin-off.  

BTW:  don't forget Tang...:)
-DonG

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61490
From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4

In article <1993Apr27.092444.27199@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave
Michelson) wrote:
> 
> In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
> >dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
> >
> >...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
> >
> >>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
> >>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
> >>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
> >>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
> >>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
> >>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
> >>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
> >>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
> >>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
> >>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
> >>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
> >>  - 7 berthing ports
> >>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
> >>    (twice the volume of skylab).
> >>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
> >>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
> >
> >Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
> >a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
> >that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
> >a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
> >of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
> >complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
> >it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).
> 
> I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
> Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

This is actually more like the stuff from Phase A and MOL....Phase B ended
with a "Power Tower" approach....

It's also VERY expensive in terms of upfront development costs....so all
you get is a redistribution of costs from the shuttle flights to the
contractors who build it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61491
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:

>In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My
>>dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of 
>>public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I
>>would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.

>It's public because it belongs to everybody. 

No, the sky does not, at this time, belong to anyone.  Ownership is necessary
to the definition because someone has to have the authority to decide if the
action was good or bad.  If neither you or I own a brick wall, then I can't
unilaterally declare that spraypainting my name on it is right, and you don't
have the authority to declare that it is wrong.  The owner may find it artistic
or she may be call the police.

(this applies to the argument on bright satellites more than street lights)

It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light. 

"maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out
of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care.

>If they can sell you
>or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
>of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.

It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware.
If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell.
Write a letter to city hall.

Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of 
this thread was space based light sources.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61492
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable...
>
>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays...

They can be detached in an emergency.  But expensive hardware is not thrown
away casually (bearing in mind that nobody knew the design was defective).
If the deployment crew had found some nasty flaw -- the lid failing to open,
for example -- it would have been a bit embarrassing to have to throw the
solar arrays away to get the thing back in the payload bay.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61493
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/30/93

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                       MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             April 30, 1993
                              11:30 AM PDT

DSS-65 (Madrid 34 meter antenna) did not acquire the expected Mars Observer
Spacecraft signal at the scheduled beginning of track yesterday morning (4/29)
at approximately 6:00 AM.  Indications were that the spacecraft had entered a
Fault Protection mode sometime between that time and receipt of normal
telemetry at the end of the previous station pass (DSS-15 - Goldstone 34
meter antenna) at approximately 8:00 PM the evening before.  Entry into
Contingency Mode was verified when signal was reacquired and telemetry
indicated that the spacecraft was sun coning.  After subsystem engineers
reported all systems performing nominally, fault protection telemetry modes
were reconfigured and memory readouts of command system Audit Queue and
AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) Starex performed.  These
readouts verified that Contingency Mode entry occurred shortly after 1:30 AM
yesterday, 4/29/93.  Preliminary indications are that a Sun Ephemeris Check
failure triggered fault protection.  However, the Flight Team will be
determining the precise cause over the next few days.

As of last evening, the spacecraft had been commanded back to Inertial
Reference and was stable in that mode.  The Flight Team is planning to
command the spacecraft back to Array Normal Spin state today.

Magnetometer Calibration activities had completed prior to Contingency
Mode entry.  MAG Calibration data has been recorded on Digital Tape
Recorders 2 and 3.  Playback of DTRs 2 and 3, scheduled to be completed
yesterday, was postponed when Contingency Mode entry halted Flight
Sequence C9 execution.  The Flight Team is developing a strategy to restart
C9 to complete data playback.  Present planning is to perform playbacks
between  as soon as Wednesday, or as late as Friday of next week (5/5-
5/7), dependent on Contingency Mode recovery activity.  DTR playback will
be performed via the High Gain Antenna at 42,667 bits per second.  Upon
verification of successful DTR playbacks, downlink will be maintained at
the 4K S & E rate.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61494
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable


In article <C6Az8z.pD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>>As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
>>of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
>>is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance...
>>... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance...
>
>Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is
>possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there
>is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced
>by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of
>the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator
>where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest-
>without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did
>it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation,
>and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.

Climbers regard 8000 metres and up as "The Death Zone".  Even on 100% Oxygen,
you are slowly dying.  At 8848m (Everest), most climbers spend only a short
period of time before descending.  I've been above 8000 once.  Descending as
little as 300m feels like walking into a jungle, the air is so thick.  Everest
in winter without oxygen, no support party (Alpine style).  That is the
"ultimate challenge" (or is it solo?)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61495
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Satellite around Pluto Mission?

In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes...
> 
>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

We've been progressing towards that goal for 30 years now.  We precede
any orbiting mission with flyby missions.  Of course, it gets harder to
do as we work our way farther away from Earth.  We're just starting to
work out to the outer planets: Galileo will orbit Jupiter, and Cassini around 
Saturn.  

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto.. 

Well first things first. We'll do a flyby mission first since it is
much easier and faster to do.  If the Fast Pluto Flyby mission is approved then
we'll launch a Pluto mission before the end of the decade.  A Pluto orbiter
however requires a larger spacecraft and a longer cruise period.   Orbit
insertion requires more fuel has to be carried along and restricts the
trajectory to a slower approach velocity to Pluto.
I'd imagine though that we would be doing a Neptune orbiting
mission before a Pluto orbiting mission, unless the Pluto flyby turns
up something really interesting.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61496
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>>to the array-flapping problems.


>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick
> release.  one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.

You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost,
and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.

For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that
there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks,
etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could
be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for
safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile
would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.)

Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to
orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61497
From: bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?


In article <C6Assy.Ao9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

>    Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few
> years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in
> Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The
> State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien
> invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens),
> the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was
> very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything
> intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a
> philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I
> believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral
> person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a
> person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.

This is a whole different situation.  If aliens were able to get here prior
to us being able to get there, one might conclude that they would be more advanced
and therefore "more intelegent" that we are.  However if we get somewhere where there
is life, chances are we wont be able to communicate with them.  So we will have
no clue as to weather they are "intelegent" or not.

>    I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The
> human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does
> underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The
> usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the
> culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.  My question however was
more along the lines of... Every year the US spends millions of tax dollars
and giving tax breaks to individuals and companies who feed the poor of foreign
countries while thousands of our own people sleep on the streets at night.
Would we give to the economicly dissadvantaged on another planet if we hadn't resolved
these issues on our own?


But... Your comment brings up another good question.  Over the years we have decided
that certain cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior
to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very little crime, no
homelessnes, no poverty.  Then the europeans came along and now they have those and
more.  If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in houses, farm
the land and go to church on sunday?
-- 
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61498
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1993Apr30.145450.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>.. 
>> 
>> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
>> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
>> they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>As Ben says - this re-boost idea is all news to us here.  Do you know 
>something we don't?  Please supply a source - it would be nice for 
>the schedulers of observations to know where the thing is going to 
>be.  These altitude numbers are also way off.  
>
>My best source has: 
>"Minimum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    573 Kilometers"
>"Maximum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    603 Kilometers"
>"Delta   ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:      3 Kilometers" 
>
>(PMDB is Proposal Management Data Base - used to schedule observations.) 
>..
>

I am sure your numbers are far better then mine.  As i said above,
i don't have exact numbers.

>> In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
>> will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
>> thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
>> needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
>> carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
>> less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
>> for a given orbital change.  
>> 
>
>Could you supply some calculations?  You might check some recent 
>postings that explained that 'a small booster' as suggested does 
>not now exist, so comparing the mass of something that doesn't 
>exist to the mass of the OMS fuel seems impossible.  The contamination 
>threat also remains.  
>

How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????

I know that no small manuevering tug exists,  but maybe  one could
soup up a Bus 1.   Does anyone out there have the de-clasified
specs on hte BUS 1?  would it be able to provide enough  control
force to balance the HST,  and  still have the rocket thrust
to hurl her into a decent high orbit?

>.. 
>> 
>> or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
>> The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
>> and longer drag life.
>> 
>  Longer drag life I can understand, but could you explain the 
>antenna pointing?  

Sorry,  that should be intrument pointing.

>
>> Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
>> on HST ops.
>
>Tell me about it.  Although the arrays can be (and are) moved perfectly 
>well utilizing the second electronics box.  Getting them both working 
>is much desireable so as to reclaim redundancy.  

Plus, if the second box gets fritzy, you could be in shitter ville
real fast.

>
>I don't mean to jump on you - helpful suggestions are always welcome 
>and we all know the more ideas the better, but I do want the true 
>situation to be described clearly and correctly, lest some get 
>confused. 
>
>Regards, 
>Wm. Hathaway 

The problem is no-one seems to have the exact numbers.  When the mission
was planned originally at 3 spacewalks,  and 3 astronauts,  there was
enormous concern over the mass margins for the flight.  THey
have now planned for 5 EVA's,  an 11 day mission and have 2 reserve
EVA's and an emergency EVA.  Obviously that is coming from somewhere.
My guess is the OMS burn  fuel,  or  re-boost  margin.   

I just figured, if GOldin wants to really,  prove out faster, cheaper
better,   have some of the whiz kids  slap together an expendable
space manuevering tug  out of a BUs1,  and use that for the re-boost.
it has to be better then using the Discovery as a tow truck.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61499
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Revival of San Marco? (was Re: Commercial Space News #22)

In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
[...]
>    This might point out some key discriminators in judging the 
> feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include:
>   - Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage 
> sufficient to recover setup costs?
>   - Is there a market advantage of using the site?
>   - Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site?
>   - Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the 
> investment?  
>    Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
> Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
> Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
> these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
> on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

This reminds me... my fuzzy brain recalls that somebody was thinking
of reviving the San Marco launch platform off the coast of Kenya,
where the Copernicus satellite was launched around 1972.  Is this
true, or am I imagining it?  Possibly it's connected with one of the
Italian programs to revive the Scout in a new version.

That old platform must be getting pretty rusty, and there ain't a lot
of infrastructure to go with it...

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June. 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | You bring your view-graphs, 
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and I'll bring my rocketship."  
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61500
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 55     
1 22640U 93 27  A 93120.24999999  .00044939  00000-0  12819-3 0   129
2 22640  28.4643 241.8868 0011265 284.7181 109.3644 15.91616537   580
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61501
From: bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.

Picture our universe floating like a log
in a river.  As the log floats down the
river, it occasionally strikes rocks, the
bank, the bottom, other logs.  When this collission
occurs, kinetic energy is translated into heat, the
log degrades, gets scraped up, and other energy 
translaions occur.  The distribution of damage to
the log depends on the shape of the log.

However, to a very small virus in a mite on the head of a
termite in the center of the log, the shock waves from the
collissions would appear uniformly random in direction.

This is my theory for GRB.  They are evidence of our universe
interacting with other universes!  Why not!  Makes
just as much sense as the GRB coming from the Oort cloud!

The log theory of universes can't be ruled out!

Of course, I'm a layman in the physics world.  You 
physicists out there, Tell me about this !!!!


Bob Combs
Astronautical Engineer,  
Stanford Telecom
.
 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61502
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?

tstroup@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes in response to my original post:

>First you need to do the literature search.  There is a lot of information
>out there.  Maybe we should just pick a specific area of long term habitation.
>This could be useful, especially if we make it available on the net.  Then
>we can look at methods of analyzing the technologies.

>>Such a detailed literature search would be of interest to 
>>ourselves as space advocates
>>and clearly important to existing space programs.
>>In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
>>various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
>>This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
>>basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
>>and any other source!

>Unless there is an unbelievable outpouring of interest on this on the net,
>I think we should develop a detailed data base of the literature search 
>first.  Then if we accomplish that we can go on to real analysis.  The data
>base itself could be useful for future engineers.

>That's my response Ken, what do you think?

>Tim

Well, I agree.  I hope others chime in with suggestions on specific
technologies which could be applied towards the maintenance of an
Earth like atmosphere on a long-duration spacecraft.

Tim et al:
I think we should try looking at atmosphere first.
This seems to be the single most fundamental issue in keeping anyone alive.
We're all taught that when supporting a patient
you look for maintaining airway. So, in keeping with my trauma training
(and keeping my emergency medicine professor happy), I suggest that
we look at the issues surrounding a regenerable atmospheric circuit.

Howz that Tim?

Ken

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61503
From: billosh@netcom.com (William E. O'Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you 
will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon.

			    Bill O'Shaughnessy


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61504
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>|prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>|>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>|>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>|>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>|>|much energy in one second? 
>|>>                                                -jeremy
>|
>|>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.
>|
>|It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds
>|in the interstellar medium.)
>|


>How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection?
>and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.

>pat

Sounds to me like you'd want a star for the ground plane.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61505
From: jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Subject: Re: Internet resources

STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU Pontificated: 
>I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet".
>For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources 
>dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was 
>wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet
>that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.
>

One of the sci.space FAQ postings deal with this.  It's archived
somewhere.  Perhaps someone can post where it is (I don'
remember).  


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
|I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!	|
|                                   <Bart Simpson> 		| 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61506
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Revival of San Marco? (was Re: Commercial Space News #22)

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
>[...]
>>    Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at 
>> Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore 
>> Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against 
>> these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying 
>> on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]

>This reminds me... my fuzzy brain recalls that somebody was thinking
>of reviving the San Marco launch platform off the coast of Kenya,
>where the Copernicus satellite was launched around 1972.  Is this
>true, or am I imagining it?  Possibly it's connected with one of the
>Italian programs to revive the Scout in a new version.

>That old platform must be getting pretty rusty, and there ain't a lot
>of infrastructure to go with it...

My information shows that the last San Marco launch was 1988.  There seem to 
have been a total of seven before that.  I seem to recall that someone, either
ASI or the University of Rome (?) includes money in their annual budget for
maintainance of the platforms (there are actually two).

The Italians have been spending money to develop an advanced Scout.  However,
recent events in the Italian space program, and the Italian government overall
make me skeptical that this will get off the ground in the near future.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61507
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?

In article <1993Apr30.164327.8663@hemlock.cray.com> bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski) writes:
>...Over the years we have decided that certain
>cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior
>to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very
>little crime, no homelessnes, no poverty...

This is, shall we say, an overly-broad statement.  In particular, are you
referring to the native American culture that existed in 1400, or the one
that existed in 1800?  (Simplify things by assuming we're talking about
the eastern US rather than the whole continent.)  Given that those were
*radically* different cultures, which one are you referring to?

>...If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in
>houses, farm the land and go to church on sunday?

Note that the pre-Columbian native Americans, east of the Mississippi,
did all of these things.  (Well, maybe not "on Sunday", but they did
have organized religions, not to mention cities and governments.)  If
you are judging the native Americans by the tribal culture that existed
in 1800, you might want to read an account of the De Soto expedition
to find out what pre-Columbian native American culture, at least in the
more civilized parts of the continent, was like.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61508
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Transistor/tube


>|Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and
>|they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise
>|than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say
>>"Tubes sound better, dude." :-)

>Of course,  they then  turn up the REverb, the Gain,  add in the analog
>delay line  and the Fuzz box.  I'd think they wouldn't notice the
>distortion.   Oh I forgot the phase shifters.

It is kind of absurd, isn't it?  Some players even want more distortion,
especially the Hendrix fans :-)  But there are a lot of them out there
that can only afford the amp, or who like playing music without distortion.
Then there are your hard-core Hendirx fans that want particular *types*
of distortion, i.e., they make it, not their amps.

>>Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use,
>>mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.

>Ah,  but how do they compare to Mechanical systems :-)

I didn't see a thing about waste-heat from Babbage, and haven't seen one
of those mechanical TV's in a while, so it's anybodie's guess :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61509
From: STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject: big THANKS

I'd like to thank everyone and anyone who sent me information
to help me with my project.  



_______  ___   ___       ___      ___     ___  ___    ___   
|     |  |  |  |  |     /   \     |   \   |  | \  \  /   / 
--| |-   |  |  |  |    / /\  \    | |\ \  |  |  \  \/   /
  | |    |   --   |   /  --   \   | | \ \ |  |   \     /  
  | |    |   __   |  /  -----  \  | |  \ \|  |   /  /\ \  
  |_|    |__|  |__| /__/     \__\ |_|   \____|  /__/  \_\



I'll send my report to all who requested a copy!


  KEITH MALINOWSKI STK1203@VAX003.Stockton.EDU
  Stockton State College
  Pomona, NJ 08240


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61510
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

Dale sez;
>Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
>an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
>the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
>are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
>complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
>orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
>on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

I don't buy it.  If the things had no value at all, people wouldn't
spend money to make them. So their lack of value is just your
opinion, not an actual fact, which is neither a philisophical or
legal basis for prohibiting them.

On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning
laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a
fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.

I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would
be violation of private property.  "I bought this house, out in
the boondocks, specifically to enjoy my hobby, amateur astronomy.  Now
this billboard has made that investment worthless, so I want the
price of the property, in damages."  It wouldn't take too many
succesful cases like that to make bill-sats prohibitively expensive.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61511
From: teezee@netcom.com (TAMOOR A. ZAIDI)
Subject: Hall Generators from USSR

Hi Folks,

              Last year America bought two  "Hall Generators" which are
used as thrusters for space vehicles from former USSR,if I could recall
correctly these devices were sent to JPL,Pasadena labs for testing and
evaluation.
     
              I am just curious to know  how these devices work and what
what principle is involved .what became of them.There was also some
controversy that the Russian actually cheated,sold inferior devices and
not the one they use in there space vehicles.

Any info will be appreciated...
  ok   {                         Thank{ in advance...
Tamoor A Zaidi
Lockheed Commercial Aircraft Center
Norton AFB,San Bernardino

teezee@netcom.com
de244@cleveland.freenet.edu


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61512
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Human Habitale Planets?

Habital planets are also dependent on what kind of plant life can be grown..
and such.. Length of growing season (that is if you want something more than
VAT food, argh, Id ratehr eat an MRE for  along period of time).

I know in Fairbanks (Furbanks to some) the winter can get to -60 or so F, but
in the summer can get to +90 and such.. I know of worse places..
       
Incans and Sherpa and other low pressure atmosphere and such are a limit in
human adaptability(someone mentioend that Incan woman must come to lower
elevations to have babies brought to term? true?) I remember a book by
Pourrnelle I think that delt with a planet was lower density air..

I wonder what the limit on the other end of atmospheres?

I am limiting to human needs and stresses and not alien possibilties..
Thou aliens might be more adapted to a totally alien to human environment, such
as the upper atmosphere of Jupiter or??

Almost makes bio-engineered life easy...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61513
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Combo Propulsion System!?

How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on
the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal
means..
Seems that everyone talks about using one system and one system only per
mission, why not have more than one propulsion system? Or did I miss
something.. ?? or did it die in committee?
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61514
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

Okay, the earth has a magnetic field (unless someone missed something?)

Okay if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
it??
Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the electrical
field?

After all the dragless satellite is (I might be wrong), a suspended between to
pilons, the the pilons compensate for drag.. I think I know what I want to say,
just not sure how to say it..

A dragless satellite sounds interestingly enough liek a generator.

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked

Sorry for spelling, have not brought windows 3.1 online with my modem and comm
program. YET!! almos tthere..


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61515
From: jayb@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (Jay Brinkmeyer)
Subject: Re: Rocket Types

in article <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au>, u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer) says:
> Message-ID: <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au>
...
> If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?
> 
> Thanx. 8-)
> 
> Glen Balmer...
> 
I believe that my former employer Hughes Aircraft Company has a working Ion 
Propulsion system for satellites.

Jay Brinkmeyer

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61516
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

Getting wierd again?

Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large and to
expensive..

Okay what about launching one probe with multiple parts.. Kind of liek the old
MIRV principle of old Cold War Days. 
Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for the
probes.

Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal
propulsion, but also a solar sail (main reason for solar sail race is to see
what can be done and autmoated?) the sail would get the probes to were they
needed.. I know the asteroid/meteor clouds (and such) might get in the way of a 
Sail??

Main reasonf ro mother ship idea is to make it more economoical to send
multiple probes/mission/satellites/exploreres to different places and cut
costs..
The probes could do fly bys or ?? we shall see...

==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61517
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
>be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????

The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle
means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again 
if it should stick.



>I just figured, if GOldin wants to really,  prove out faster, cheaper
>better,   have some of the whiz kids  slap together an expendable
>space manuevering tug  out of a BUs1,  and use that for the re-boost.

It's clear that the "whiz kids" are not running the show. In any
case it's not prudent to stick a "slapped together" explosive device
on the end of a billion dollar asset that you'd like to see again.
(Wiseacres might say that a shuttle is a slapped-together explosive
device, but at least it's had some testing.)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61518
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Getting wierd again?

Or perhaps even weird?

>Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large and to
>expensive..

Hmmm, you might want to read this group more carefully; there's been a good 
amount of discussion of the proposed Pluto Fast Flyby (PFF) mission that is 
specifically designed to be small and cheap.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61519
From: rousself@cicb.fr ( Frank ROUSSEL )
Subject: *** FTP images ASTRO server ***


I commend everybody to look at the FTP site 'ftp.cicb.fr'
-> Ethernet address 129.20.128.2 <-
in the directory /pub/Images/ASTRO:
there are lots of images (all of kinds in astronomy subject)
especially in GIF format and a NEW ! directory of some JPL animations

For your comfort, README files in all subdirectories give size and
description of each image, and a 7 days' newer images' list is in READMENEW

Note: you can connect it as 'anonymous' or 'ftp' user, then the quota
      for each is 8 users connected in the same time.
      So, if the server responds you "connection refused", be patient !

2nd note: this site is reachable by Gopher at 'roland.cicb.fr'
          -> Ethernet address 129.20.128.27 <-
          in 'Divers serveurs Ftp/Le serveur ftp du CRI-CICB/Images/ASTRO'

If you have any comments, suggestions, problems,
then you can contact me at E-mail 'rousself@univ-rennes1.fr'

Hope you enjoy it !


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61520
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: temperature of the dark sky

In <1993Apr30.163959.19715@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

>cooked if that were the case.  In any event, the energy density of
>starlight comes out about the same as that of the microwave
>background, and I believe that to be correct.)


Yeah, what about that? Is this just a weird coincidence? (And
let's not see all the same hands this time, TVF.)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61521
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

[Description of Boeing study of two-staged spaceplane using
supersonic ramjets deleted.]

In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
to fool around with exotic airplanes.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61522
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.

You should have been following the discussion of GRBs
going on in sci.astro. It's been discussed in some detail,
with references even.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61523
From: <RFM@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <billoshC6Bqyy.H6H@netcom.com>, billosh@netcom.com (William E.
O'Shaughnessy) says:
>
>If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you
>will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
>One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon.
>
>                            Bill O'Shaughnessy
>
What are those other objects?  UFOs????

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61524
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
>reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
>to fool around with exotic airplanes.

This presupposes that no supersonic ramjet aircraft/spacecraft can be reliable
or low-cost.  This is unproven.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61525
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Single Launch Space Station

: Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes:
: >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
: >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
: >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
: >and jettisoned after ET separation.

Karl Dishaw (0004244402@mcimail.com) replied:
: Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle 
: bring them down to use as spares?

One performance reason comes to mind: if you jettison the SSME's, you
don't have to drag them with you when you perform your circularization
burn(s).  On-orbit, SSME's are just dead weight, since we don't have an
SSME H2/O2 pressurization mechanism which works in zero-G.  This means
that you can't use them for re-boost or anything else.  Dead weight has
a couple of advantages, but more disadvantages.

Throw-away SSME's might let us use some of the old SSME's which are not-
quite-man-ratable.  But I doubt we'd do that; the cost of a launch
failure is too high.

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

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as 
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61526
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Kaliningrad (Was: Tsniimach Enterprise)

F.Baube[tm] writes:
>> Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military
>>establishment, ...  They are located near the NPO Energia
>>facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow.
> 
>If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow, it is
>in fact the ex-East Prussian Konigsberg, now a Russian enclave on
>the Baltic coast.  It is served by ships and rail, and the intrepid
>traveller in Europe would find it accessible and might even want to
>try to arrange a tour (??).
  
   Hmm... there must be two towns with the same name.  Kaliningrad,
located just North of Moscow is correct.  It is the home of several
Russian space enterprises, including NPO Energia, Krunichev, Fakel,
and Tsniimach.  The main Russian manned spacecraft control facility
is also located here.
   Kaliningrad is easily reachable by auto from Moscow, and tours
can be arranged.  Call ahead though, there are still armed military
guards at many of these facilities -- who don't speak English,
aren't well paid, and are rather bored.
   It's a very popular destination with Western space industry
types at the moment.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61527
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?

: In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes...
: > I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
: >there a constant sensation of falling? 

Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) replied:
: Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first,
: but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that
: of sky diving.

I'm no astronaut, but I've flown in the KC-135 several times.  I'll
tell you about my first flight.

At the on-set of weightlessness, my shoulders lifted and my spine
straightened.  I felt a momentary panic, and my hands tried to grab
onto something (like the strap keeping me firmly against the floor)
to prevent me from falling; I remember conciously over-ruling my
involuntary motions.  My ears felt (not heard) a rush and I could
feel fluid moving in my head (like when you get up from bed while
you have a cold).

At that point, I ceased to concentrate on my physiological response,
since I had some science to do.  I was busy keeping my experiment
going and keeping track of all the parts during the "return" of
gravity and subsequent 1.8-G pull-out, so I didn't really pay
attention to physiology at that time.

After about 5 parabolas, I discovered that I was performing one
of the tricks I've discovered to keep myself from getting motion
sickness; I was keeping my head very still and moving very slowly
-- all except my hands and arms, which needed to be in rapid,
concious motion for my experiment.  During the pull-out to
parabola 5, my queasiness finally started to get to me, and I
had to use one of those air-sickness bags.  I was basically
useless for the rest of that flight, so I went to the seats in
the back of the plane while my partner (whom I drafted for just
this purpose) kept working on the experiment while I was ill.
(He was a vetran Vomit Comet rider, one of those anomalous
people who don't get sick on the thing.)

I didn't think of it as a "constant sensation of falling" so
much as like swimming in air.  It's very close to the sensations
I feel when I'm scuba diving and I turn my head down and fins up.

Jerry:
: >And what is the motion sickness
: >that some astronauts occasionally experience? 

Ron:
: It is the body's reaction to a strange environment.  It appears to be
: induced partly to physical discomfort and part to mental distress.
: Some people are more prone to it than others, like some people are more
: prone to get sick on a roller coaster ride than others.  The mental
: part is usually induced by a lack of clear indication of which way is
: up or down, ie: the Shuttle is normally oriented with its cargo bay
: pointed towards Earth, so the Earth (or ground) is "above" the head of
: the astronauts.  About 50% of the astronauts experience some form of
: motion sickness, and NASA has done numerous tests in space to try to
: see how to keep the number of occurances down.

I'm a volunteer in JSC's Space Biomedical Laboratory where they do,
among other things, some of the tests Ron mentions.  I was in one
called the Pre-flight Adaptation Trainer, which consisted of a chair on
a several-degree-of-freedom motion base with moving geometric visual
aids.  The goal was to measure the victim's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subject's
responses and subjective physiological descriptions and see if repeated
exposure to this environment could reduce future motion sickness
symptoms.

Jerry --

I don't know of any former or active-duty astronauts who personally
read this group.  I know that Bruce McCandless's office had been
waiting anxiously for the Space Station Redesign option I posted
last week, but I don't think Bruce reads the group himself.

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

     "The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make
      anything."
        -- Edward John Phelps, American Diplomat/Lawyer (1825-1895)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61528
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Deployable Space Dock..

: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
: >Why not build a inflatable space dock.

Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) wrote:
: If you're doing large-scale satellite servicing, being able to do it in
: a pressurized hangar makes considerable sense.  The question is whether
: anyone is going to be doing large-scale satellite servicing in the near
: future, to the point of justifying development of such a thing.

That's a mighty fine idea.  But since you asked "Why not," I'll
respond.

Putting aside the application of such a space dock, there are other
factors to consider than just pressurized volume.  Temperature control
is difficult in space, and your inflatable hangar will have to 
incorporate thermal insulation (maybe a double-walled inflatable).
Micrometeoroid protection and radiation protection are also required.
Don't think this will be a clear plastic bubble; it's more likely
to look like a big white ball made out of the same kind of multi-layer
fabric that soft-torso space suits are made out of today.

Because almost all manned space vessels (Skylab, Mir, Salyut) used
their pressurization for increased structural rigidity, even though
they had (have) metal skins, they still kind of qualify as inflatable.

The inflation process would have to be carefully controlled.  The
space environment reduces ductility in exposed materials (due to
temperature extremes, monotomic Oxygen impingement, and radiation
effects on materials), so your "fabric" may not retain any flexibility
for long.  (This may not matter.)  Even after inflation, pressure
changes in the hangar may cause flexing in the fabric, which could
lead to holes and tears as ductility decreases.

These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal
for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of
success.

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

     "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll
      work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61529
From: dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Teflon (Re: Long term Human Missions

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>>
>>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>>
>>2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
>
>Sorry to split hairs, but I just read in "The making of the atomic
>bomb"(*) that teflon was developed during world war 2.  A sealant was
>needed for the tubing in which uranium hexafluoride passed as it was
>gradually enriched by difussion.  UF6 is very corrosive, and some very
>inert yet flexible material was needed for the seals.

I think you're both right.  Teflon was actually discovered by accident
before WWII.  From what I've heard, they had some chemical (I assume it
was tetrafluoroethylene) in a tank and but the valve got gummed up.
Cutting it open revealed that it had polymerized.

The material was useful for seals, but it had a major problem for, say
the linings of vessels: it wouldn't stick to metal.  What the space
program did was to find a way to get it to stick.  Thus we had no-stick
frypans on the market in the late '60s.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61530
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: LLNL Inflated space stations (was Deployable Space Dock..)

kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>: >Why not build a inflatable space dock.

[discussion of pros and cons deleted]

>These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal
>for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of
>success.

Could someone give me the references to the LLNL proposal?  I've been meaning
to track it down in conjuntion with something I'm working on.  It's not 
directly related to space stations, but I think many of the principles will 
carry over.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61531
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6BDGM.90r@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
|>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
|>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
|>>retractable as well as extendable...
|>
|>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
|>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays...
|
|They can be detached in an emergency.  But expensive hardware is not thrown
|away casually (bearing in mind that nobody knew the design was defective).
|If the deployment crew had found some nasty flaw -- the lid failing to open,
|for example -- it would have been a bit embarrassing to have to throw the
|solar arrays away to get the thing back in the payload bay.


I guess it's  kind of an aesthetics argument.

I can see the solar arrays being expensive,  and  there could be
contingencies where you would be throwing away brand new
solar cells,   but  it seems so cheap compared toa shuttle
mission, i wouldn't think they would bother.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61532
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Political banner in space


Well,  you better not get the shuttle as your launch vehicle.

and most ELV's have too  far of a backlog for political messages.

If during the campaign season,  the candidates for president had
launched one,  right around now we'd  be getting a launch
for PEROT 92.

and if they had used the shuttle,  we'd be seeing launches
for NIXON now more then ever.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61533
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Teflon (Re: Long term Human Missions

In article <1rtghr$j9v@techbook.techbook.com> dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
|The material was useful for seals, but it had a major problem for, say
|the linings of vessels: it wouldn't stick to metal.  What the space
|program did was to find a way to get it to stick.  Thus we had no-stick
|frypans on the market in the late '60s.


Ejon Matejevic who was a full professor at Clarkson University, last
I heard,  developed the process for sticking Teflon to metals.

I don't think it was a NASA project, cuz i heard he held the patent
on it, and had made quite a bundle off it.

Anyone from Clarkson know the Exact story.  I never wanted to ask
him myself.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61534
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <C6BBow.IH9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
|
|>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
|>the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
|>has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
|>no extra MMU's.   
|
|Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
|mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  
|

Someone from NASA posted that there were very significant mass margins
on the HST re-boost mission.  A while back i had asked why not carry
the EDO pallet up,  and the answer was the mass margins were tight enough, they weren't even carrying extra suits.

|>WHy not do this?
|
|>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
|
|>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
|>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
|
|Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  
|
|Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less
|than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain
|and reschedule the EVA's in that time.
|

Where's wingo when you need him:-)

COme on.   Knock that S**T off.

YOu forget,  that during skylab,  they did  overnight mission planning
for the repair EVA's.   Also during the   
Intelsat Mission,   they did overnight  WETF simulations.
I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.

And as for building hardware,  anything can  be built if you want it
bad enough.

YOu forget,  the  BUS 1  is already built.  all they'd ahve to do
is soup it up, even test it  on a delta mission.

Don't get into this mode of  negativism.   besides,  at the rate
missions slip,   the Discovery won't launch on this mission until
March.  that's almost a year.

|More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
|was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
|extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.
|

Ah,  but how much more expensive is the Second HST servicing mission.

YOu forget,  there is a bum FGS,  the Solar array electronics, are
getting hinky  and there is still 8 months until the servicing mission.

The time for the space walks are growing rapidly.  THis was orignally
planned out as 3 spacewalks,  now they are at 5 EVA's  with 3 reserve
walks.

If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
saved.  If the Weight savings,  means they  can sit on orbit  for 30 Days.
and  handle any contingency  problems,  that's quite a savings.

|
|According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
|only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
|AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
|there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.


Of course,  there wasn't any need for the Saturn  V  after apollo too.

as for the problems with the aperture door,  I am sure they can
work out some way to handle  that.  Maybe a Plug  made from
Frozen ice.?   it'll keep out any contamination,
yet sublime away  after teh boost.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61535
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Combo Propulsion System!?

In article <1993May1.043916.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on
>the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal
>means..

If you've got a good propulsion system that's not useful for deceleration,
sure you can use chemical rockets for that part... but even just doing the
deceleration chemically is a major headache.  We're talking seriously high
cruising velocities; taking the velocity down nearly to zero for a Pluto
orbit isn't easy with chemical fuels.

Incidentally, solar sails are not going to be suitable as the acceleration
system for something like this.  They don't go anywhere quickly.  (I speak
as head of mission planning for the Canadian Solar Sail Project, although
that is more or less an honorary title right now because CSSP is dormant.)
They can't fly a mission like this unless you start talking about very
advanced systems that drop in very close to the Sun first.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61536
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <1993May1.044441.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay, the earth has a magnetic field ...
>...if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

Well, it's not that simple -- you're in Earth's magnetic field, and you
don't generate electricity -- but it can be done.

>Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
>vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
>it??

The way you power things is with electricity, so the answer to the first
question is definitely yes.  (If you meant to say "propel" rather than
"power", the answer is "sort of".)  Yes, you can use interaction with the
Earth's magnetic field to get electrical power, and there are potential
applications for this.

However, bear in mind that there is no free lunch.  The energy isn't
coming from nowhere.  What such systems do is convert some of the energy
of your orbital velocity into electrical energy.  There are cases where
this is a useful tradeoff.  Using power obtained in this way for propulsion
is useful only in special situations, however.

What you *can* do is get your power by some other means, e.g. solar arrays,
and run the interaction with the magnetic field in reverse, pumping energy
*into* the orbit rather than taking energy out of it.

If you want more information, trying looking up "electrodynamic propulsion",
"tether applications", and "magsails".

>Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the
>electrical field?

No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
there was no drag.  This is why there are quotes around "dragless".
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61537
From: claypool@wam.umd.edu (Mr. Krinkle)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image

In article <1993Apr30.173625.10139@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
>>
>>
>>an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
>Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
             Cool!
>Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
>across the clouds.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	I think you mean Moon.
		(Sorry, I had to.)  ; )




Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61538
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky

In article <C6BIr5.InC.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
|On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning
|laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a
|fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.

And I lived out there too.  It was a nice sleepy farm valley until
the Butler family decided to stick up all sorts of really tacky
High RIse office buildings and ruin my view of the sky.

I guess i should have sued somebody :-;

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61539
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>... design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
>different missions,namely different planets...

Not useful unless you've got some truly wonderful propulsion system for
the mother ship that can't be applied to the probes.  Otherwise it's
better to simply launch the probes independently.  The outer planets
are scattered widely across a two-dimensional solar system, and going
to one is seldom helpful in going to the next one.  Uranus is *not* on
the way to Neptune.  Don't judge interplanetary trajectories in general
by what the Voyagers did:  they exploited a lineup that occurs only
every couple of centuries, and even so Voyager 2 took a rather indirect
route to Neptune.

>Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal
>propulsion, but also a solar sail ...

Solar sails are pretty useless in the outer solar system.  They're also
very slow, unless you assume quite advanced versions.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61540
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes...
>In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this
>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be
>>retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed
>>to the array-flapping problems.
> 
> 
>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going
>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick release.
> 
I didn't think the bi-stem design was used so much for the retrieval as
for the ability to launch in a tight (size) STS envelope.  This is my own 
guess, based on similar designs flown on other large STS-launched s/c 
(GRO, UARS).  Also, there _might_ be some consideration given to mass 
requirements (bi-stems weight less than conventional S/A).  Finally, 
the HST arrays _do_ have the ability to be detached--remember, they're 
going to be replaced with new arrays.

However, as an ACS guy who's seen his branch management pull their
collective hair out over HST, I would voice a hearty 'yea' to using
conventional arrays over bi-stems, whenever possible.  No half hertz
flexible modes, no thermal snap, no problem.

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61541
From: howard@sharps.astro.wisc.edu (Greg Howard)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?

In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
>> distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
>> megaparsec^2 is OK.
>> 
>different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the
>galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a
>R=8800Mpc.  
>        For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty
>energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
>And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
>moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
>much energy in one second? 
>                                                -jeremy
>
>

Supernovae put out 10^53 or 10^54 (i forget which, but it's only an
order of magnitude...).  Not in gamma rays, though.  You'd hafta get
all of that into gammas if they were at 9 Mpc, but if a decent fraction
of the SN output was in gammas it could reasonably be extragalactic 
(but closer than 9 Mpc).  I dunno SN theory so well, but I can't think
of how to get many gammas out.  Maybe I should look it up.

Big radio galaxies can put out 10^46 erg/s *continually*.  That's just
in the radio... there are a lot of gammas around them, too, but "bursts"?
Nah.

Neither of these should be taken as explanations... just trying to show
that those energies *are* produced by things we know about.


greg





Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61542
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In article <C6DtD0.HHI@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>by what the Voyagers did:  they exploited a lineup that occurs only
>every couple of centuries, and even so Voyager 2 took a rather indirect
>route to Neptune.

Indirect compared to what?  Did Voyager 2 traverse a substantially greater
distance than, say, a Hohmann orbit?  I've never heard Voyager's path
described as "indirect" before...  

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61543
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <1993May1.044441.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay, the earth has a magnetic field (unless someone missed something?)
>
>Okay if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..

No, if you put a conductor in a changing magnetic field, it produces a voltage.
The two ways you can do that with a permanent magnet is to move the magnet or
move the conductor.  The slow shifting of the Earth's magnetic field isn't
really significant, especially when you consider how weak the Earth's magnetic
field is to begin with.

>Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit
>vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power
>it??

Well, it would require generating an incredibly large magnetic field to repel
the Earth's magnetic field (as a magnet can repel another magnet).  Of course,
this force only works in one direction, and the magnetic field generated has
to be unimaginably powerful.  Magnetic repulsion drops off as 1/r^3, and the
earth's magnetic field on the surface is already very weak.  It would require
some sort of unknown superconductor, and special nonmagnetic construction.
And seriously hardenned electronics (optical computers, perhaps).  And the
physiological danger would be significant (due to the iron content in our
blood, among other things).  In other words, forget it.

>Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the electrical
>field?
>
>After all the dragless satellite is (I might be wrong), a suspended between to
>pilons, the the pilons compensate for drag.. I think I know what I want to say,
>just not sure how to say it..
>
>A dragless satellite sounds interestingly enough liek a generator.

I missed out on the "dragless satellite" thread, but it sounds totally bogus,
from this little bit.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61544
Subject: Re:  Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)

In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>
>In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>
>> >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>>
>> >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>> >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
>>
>> >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
>>
>. . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
>'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
>part of the Oort cloud.

I don't know what you mean by 'edged', but surely there are two other
possibilities for an isotropic distribution: near interstellar (up to
~100 pc, i.e. within the disc), or the Galaxy's corona?

>Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
>of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
>isn't a mechanism for the others either.

--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ............ alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"Among the gods, there is a dispute as to which one of them originally
thought of Christianity; or, as they call it, the Great Leg Pull.  Apollo
has the best claim, but a sizeable minority support Pluto, ex-God of the
Dead, on the grounds that he has a really sick sense of humour." (Tom Holt)


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61545
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

>I wrote:
>>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,  
>|
>|Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
>|mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.  

>Someone from NASA posted that there were very significant mass margins
>on the HST re-boost mission.  A while back i had asked why not carry
>the EDO pallet up,  and the answer was the mass margins were tight enough,
they weren't even carrying extra suits.

So how much mass is saved by not burning the OMS?  That's the critical question.
My data shows that the OMS engines hold 10,900 kg of propellant.  Of that, a 
substantial fraction is going to be used for the first OMS burn, the reentry
burn and the reserve.  So Pat, tell us how much fuel the altitude change is
going to take, and how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1 and extra parts are going
mass.  If you can make the numbers work out, _then_ I'll be interested.  After
you show us that it can be done, then tell us how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1
and extra equipment is going to cost.  

>|>WHy not do this?
>|
>|>	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.
>|
>|>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
>|>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.
>|
>|Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.  

>Where's wingo when you need him:-)
>COme on.   Knock that S**T off.

>YOu forget,  that during skylab,  they did  overnight mission planning
>for the repair EVA's.   Also during thexD   
>Intelsat Mission,   they did overnight  WETF simulations.
>I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.

First, while astronauts certainly have done EVAs with minimal planning, that was
because they _had_ to.  They don't like to do that as a general rule.

Second, remember why they had to improvise during Intelsat 6?  They were trying
to attach a motor to a piece of hardware that wasn't designed to do that.  
Trying to shortcut the training is only going to make a repeat more likely.

Third, they don't have eight months.  They have however much time is left 
after someone comes up with a plan, shows it can work and gets it approved.
You may think I have a pessimistic attitude.  I think it's realistic.  I'm not
saying that the engineering task is impossible (few engineering tasks are).  
What I'm saying is that this is neither cost effective nor feasible under NASA
management.

>And as for building hardware,  anything can  be built if you want it
>bad enough.

>YOu forget,  the  BUS 1  is already built.  all they'd ahve to do
>is soup it up, even test it  on a delta mission.

"All they have to do is soup it up?"  Just what does that mean?  

>Don't get into this mode of  negativism.   besides,  at the rate
>missions slip,   the Discovery won't launch on this mission until
>March.  that's almost a year.

>|More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
>|was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
>|extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.

>Ah,  but how much more expensive is the Second HST servicing mission.

The second servicing mission is a contingency.  You have neither shown that it
would be necessary without your plan nor that it would be unnecessary with your
plan.  

>YOu forget,  there is a bum FGS,  the Solar array electronics, are
>getting hinky  and there is still 8 months until the servicing mission.

No, Pat, I haven't forgotten.

>If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
>saved.

No Pat.  That's $500 million minus the cost of the new hardware, minus the cost
of the extra struff you want to bring along, minus development and mangement 
costs, minus extra operating costs.  TANSTAAFL.

>|According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
>|only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
>|AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
>|there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.

>Of course,  there wasn't any need for the Saturn  V  after apollo too.

I'm sure that if you reread this you'll see that your argument is falacious.

>as for the problems with the aperture door,  I am sure they can
>work out some way to handle  that.  Maybe a Plug  made from
>Frozen ice.?   it'll keep out any contamination,
>yet sublime away  after teh boost.

Pat, not only is this messy and less reliable than a device that's _made_ to 
perform this task, it also ignores the point.  There is a desire to have 
astronauts available so that if the door fails to open, something can be done
about it.  Unless you can provide a very reliable way of reopening the door,
you haven't solved the problem.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61546
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:

> Getting wierd again?
> 
> Okay what about launching one probe with multiple parts.. Kind of liek the old
> MIRV principle of old Cold War Days. 
> Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
> different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
> the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
> for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for the
> probes.

I can't see the need for a single (big? expensive? heavy?) "mothership" except
for Voyager style flyby missions. A few years ago, I did some calculations on a
"Grand Tour" space probe launched by a Saturn V in 1975-76. At the time,I felt 
that
the idea of a big "mother ship" had some merit - the Voyagers had to be rather
small, lightweight craft due to the limitations imposed by using weak Titan
III/Centaur launchers. The concept I examined (and Michael's?) had a lot in
common with the British Interplanetary Society's Daedalus project for sending a
probe to Barnard's Star - i.e. a large "bus" spacecraft carrying several
smaller probes to be dispatched when the ship arrives at its destination.
The Saturn V supposedly would have been able to launch a 10-ton payload towards
Jupiter and beyond. The "bus" could have included far more powerful
cameras/telescopes/scientific equipment and a heavier/more powerful power
source than the Voyagers as there would be no limitations on weight anymore.
Extremely important as the Voyagers had to perform most of their measurements
within a couple of weeks before and after planetary encounter, and usually at a
relatively great distance.
---
The smaller probes carried aboard might have been based on the "real" Voyagers,
and an even smaller version like the one scheduled for launch towards Pluto in
the early 21st century, and would have been released at various points during
the mission. The advantages are obvious: the bus would have carried out the
same basic Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune mission than Voyager 2 did, but in
addition two "sub-probes" could have been relased at Saturn, examining
that planet's south polar regions before moving on to Pluto. This would have
enabled NASA to map both hemispheres of Pluto/Charon by 1986...and several
other probes could have examined parts of the Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune
systems that weren't examined in great detail by the Voyagers due to
trajectory-related factors. A small "swarm" of camera-equipped miniature space
probes released a month before encounter would have been too costly for a 
small Voyager-type mission but entirely feasible if launched from a heavy, 
well-equipped spacecraft. And would we have learned a lot more about the outer
planets! The reason why the Grand Tour was cancelled was lack of money, of
course. 

MARCU$
   
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
> 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61547
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Subject: Re: What planets are habitable

<C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:

><JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>
>>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled,
> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available
> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan.

Some more references:

S.H. Dole

"Habitable Planets for Man"
Blaisdell Publishing Company, New York (1964)

I don't know if this can be found any more.

M.J. Fogg

"Extra-Solar Planetary Systems: A Microcomputer Simulation"
J. Brit. Interplanetary. Soc., _38_, 501-514, (1985)

"An Estimate of the Prevalence of Biocompatible and Habitable Planets"
J. Brit. Interplanetary. Soc., _45_, 3-12, (1992)

The first paper includes a detailed discussion of the physical conditions
for habitability.

-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61548
From: gkm@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore)
Subject: Fax/email wanted for Louis Friedman/Planetary Society

If available please send to
Glen Moore
Director
Science Centre
Wollongong, Australia
fax: 61 42 213151   email: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61549
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Human Habitale Planets?

In article <1993May1.042810.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Habital planets are also dependent on what kind of plant life can be grown..
>and such.. Length of growing season (that is if you want something more than
>VAT food, argh, Id ratehr eat an MRE for  along period of time).

Using greenhouses to extend the growing season shouldn't be a problem.
I'm supprised they don't do so in Alaska (cheaper to import, perhaps?)

>Incans and Sherpa and other low pressure atmosphere and such are a limit in
>human adaptability(someone mentioend that Incan woman must come to lower
>elevations to have babies brought to term? true?)

No, the Incas had no problems with this, but the Spanish did.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61550
From: wohlmuth@cehpx10 (Walter Wohlmuth)
Subject: large accelerations revisited


Why can't an aircraft be designed so that the pilot can always be 
maintained in a upright position, perpendicular to the plane of
acceleration?  With the visual helmets now being used that display
some of the flight parameters and with a keyboard and manuvering
equipment moving with the pilot, a pilot may be able to function at
accelerations in excess of 12G.  Is anyone currently pursuing this
area or is there a reason why this is impossible at the present time?

--
Walter A. Wohlmuth		walter@capone.ccsm.uiuc.edu
U. of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61551
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Subject: Re: Mothership for Flybys and cutting costs..

In a recent article nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large 
>and to expensive..

I'd hardly call the current Pluto Fast Flyby proposal "too large" (if the
new technology insertion currently taking place succeeds, the S/C mass will
drop to 110-120 kg) or "too expensive" ($400 million [FY92 $] for two S/C),
especially when compared to other NASA planetary missions.

>Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for
>different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with
>the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go
>for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for 
>the probes.

This proposal would work only if your various targets are relaively nearby and
the require minimal delta-v from the mother ship.  A mission to the main belt
might be one possibility for such a mission -- I recall a paper being presented
at an AIAA deisgn conference in Irvine in February where such a proposed
spacecraft was designed by some grad students at UT Austin (I think).  Four
mini-spacecraft would detatch from the main S/C, each visiting a seperate
asteroid and then returning to the main S/C.  After analysis, the main S/C
would then be targeted for the most "interesting" object for further study.

Now, if I could only *find* that paper...  =)


-- 
Jeff Foust              [40 days!]	"Historical analogy is the last refuge
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech	 of people who can't grasp the current
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu			 situation." -- from _Red_Mars_ by
jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov					Kim Stanley Robinson

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61552
From: rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

In article <C6BDIo.K7C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:
>
>It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light. 
>
>"maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out
>of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care.
>
>>If they can sell you
>>or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent
>>of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.
>
>It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware.
>If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell.
>Write a letter to city hall.

That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia 
recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various
type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell
were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy
a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to
either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.  At some
point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.  
Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code
down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter
is more likely to work.

>
>Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of 
>this thread was space based light sources.
>
Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out 
there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that 
have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult
the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt
to boost public knowledge about space.
>
>-- 
>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>		    "Find a way or make one."
>	             -attributed to Hannibal

Bob Bunge
rbunge@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61553
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Technolgy Investment

In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>It's interesting to note that some of our best tools for cost control
>available in industry today were derived from Government projects.
>GANTT charts, CP/M, and most of the modern scheduling software comes
>from DoD projects and their contractors.  The construction industry


Of course,

	How many government projects after Using PERT, GANT, C.P.M.s
Process flow diagrams,  Level 5 software projects....  actually
come in on schedule and under Cost.  I know the GAO determined
that 80% of all NASA projects  miss their budgets due to failing
to adequately measure  engineering developement costs.   

Me, I am allin favor of Government R&D.  I thought Bell Labs was one of the best 
to do research.   I don't think the government should pour money
into any one sector,  but should engage in projects which naturally
push the state of the art.  

THings like  High tech  construction projects,  apollo  was worth it for the doing.  Running hte national labs.  The SSC is grossly overweight,  but
is a reasonable project at a lower cost.  

Unfortunately support for solo investigators is direly neglected.

Maybe what they should do, is throw out much of the process and just tell
new PH'ds,  you get a 1 time grant of $50,000.00   If you produce, you
can  qualify for other grants.  If you don't  you never get in again.

THis way  young people get a shot at  reserach,  and older  stale 
scientists don't dominate the process.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61554
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: France spied on by the U.S.


You mena in the same way french intelliegence agents steal
documents from US corporate executives?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61555
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <C6B0By.1C9@zoo.toronto.edu: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
:In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
:>... Also, as implied by other posters, why 
:>do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ...
:You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in
:low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was
:deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason.
:It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has
:no propulsion system of its own.)

Has any thought been given as to how they are going to boost the HST yet?
Give it a push?  I can see the push start cartoons now :-).

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@blue.njit.edu for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61556
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Report on redesign team

In article <Cohen-270493073219@q5022531.mdc.com> Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:
>The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
>but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....
>
>
>The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:
>
> Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
>

I don't think this will work.  Still the same in space
integration problems,  small modules, especially the Bus-1 modules.
the MOL would be bigger.   

Also,  budget problems  may end up stalling developemnt.  
A small undersized station wont have the science community support.

> Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
>

Program effeciencies may cut costs,  but the basic problems
with freedom remain.  in space integration,  too many flights
too build.  not enough science retrurn.  

> Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
>the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
>

Essentialy  $5 billion to build MIR.

I think had NASA  locked onto this design, back in 1984,  with
scarring to support a TRUSS for real expandability,  we'd be looking
at a flying space station.

This looks the most realistic, to me,  IMHO,  but,  i dont know if
there is enough will power  to toss the CDR'd  existing hardware
and then  take a 1/3rd  power cut  and do it this way.

the core  launch station has a lot of positive ideas.  You could stick
in more hatches for  experimental  concept modules.  Like the ET
derived workshops.  Or inflatable modules.

pat
>(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)


Sad but true.

epitaph.  Killed by mis-management.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61557
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)

In article <C6DvGH.ApH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>
>>I wrote:
>>>prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>
>My data shows that the OMS engines hold 10,900 kg of propellant.  Of that, a 
>substantial fraction is going to be used for the first OMS burn, the reentry
>burn and the reserve.  So Pat, tell us how much fuel the altitude change is
>going to take, and how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1 and extra parts are going
>mass.  If you can make the numbers work out, _then_ I'll be interested.  After
>you show us that it can be done, then tell us how much the EDO pallet, BUS-1
>and extra equipment is going to cost.  
>

I don't know.  Does anyone in NASA land know how much fuel is
budgeted for the altitude change?

Henry,  any figures on the mass  (full)  for the EDO pallet  plus
it's dry weight?  How about for the dry mass of Bus-1?  it was
being de-classified as i checked last.

Also, I need.

1)  current orbital parameters of HST 

2)  projected  orbital parameters after re-boost.

3)  Discovery's  DRY weight

4) HST's Dry weight.


>>I somehow think they could train up a new  EVA in  8 months.
>
>First, while astronauts certainly have done EVAs with minimal planning, that was
>because they _had_ to.  They don't like to do that as a general rule.
>

So how long do they need to train?  a year?  2 years?  somehow
I think 2-3 moths should be adequate.

>Second, remember why they had to improvise during Intelsat 6?  They were trying
>to attach a motor to a piece of hardware that wasn't designed to do that.  
>Trying to shortcut the training is only going to make a repeat more likely.
>

Also because they significantly lacked on-orbit EVA experience.  
The HST is designed for on-orbit servicing.  it should be a lot easier.

>Third, they don't have eight months.  They have however much time is left 
>after someone comes up with a plan, shows it can work and gets it approved.
>You may think I have a pessimistic attitude.  I think it's realistic.  I'm not
>saying that the engineering task is impossible (few engineering tasks are).  
>What I'm saying is that this is neither cost effective nor feasible under NASA
>management.
>

There comes a time in every project, to kill the management.

They can if neccessary, re-schedule the  HST mission.  December is
not a drop dead date, unlike say the LDEF retrieval mission.  


>
>"All they have to do is soup it up?"  Just what does that mean?  
>

I suspect, the BUS-1, may not have enough basic thrust for the HST
re-boost.  it mayu need bigger tanks,  or bigger thrusters.


My understanding is the Second HST servicing mission is not
a contingency.  My understanding is the mission  needs both
a new FOC  and work on the electrical system,  plus
another re-boost.   

>
>>If the SMT can avoid a second servicing mission that's $500 million
>>saved.
>
>No Pat.  That's $500 million minus the cost of the new hardware, minus the cost
>of the extra struff you want to bring along, minus development and mangement 
>costs, minus extra operating costs.  TANSTAAFL.
>

Somehow, i think the cost of an expendable SMT will be less then
$500 million.

and the extra stuff is real cheap.  NASA has lots of suits,  MMU's,
and the EDO pallets are re-usable.  Oh, one double magnum of champagne,
now there's a couple hundred bucks.

>


>
>Pat, not only is this messy and less reliable than a device that's _made_ to 
>perform this task, it also ignores the point.  There is a desire to have 
>astronauts available so that if the door fails to open, something can be done
>about it.  Unless you can provide a very reliable way of reopening the door,
>you haven't solved the problem.


That door has cycled, X times already.  Once after massive G loading.
I somehow think they can work ou;reliability  methods to ensure the
door works.

Also,  please tell me how some sort of sublimated  material  like
CO2, or H2O  would manage to contaminate the mirror,  anything
that goes to vapor state, shouldn't adhere to the mirror.

somehow, the door,  problem can be worked.  maybe they can put a one
time spring on it.

what do they do now, if the door hangs up.  that door is part
of a intrument safing mechanism.  if it hangs up tomorrow,  it'll
be 8 months until someone gets up there witha crowbar to fix it.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61558
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Combo Propulsion System!?


How difficult would it be to do a solar sail mission to say mercury?

Not much has been there and there is a 23?KM/s delta v to eat off.

could a  solar sail, handle say adiscovery bus, and drop it into
mercury orbit,  good enough for rockets to put it into some
form of polar orbit?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61559
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Electrical Spacecraft via Magnetic field of earth?

In article <C6DF6w.Bur@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
>constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
>there was no drag.  This is why there are quotes around "dragless".


I didn't exactly follow the "dragless" satellitte  thread.

What is the point of it?  are they used for  laser geodesy  missions?
triad seemed to be some sort of navy navigation bird,  but why
be "dragless"  why not just update  orbital parameters?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61560
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to
>have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and
>technology.  Basically, the U.S. Government has gotten into the role of
>supporting research which private industry finds too expensive or too
>long-term.  

>(Historically, this role for the U.S. Gov't was forced upon it because
>of socialism in other countries.  In order for U.S.  industries to
>compete with government-subsidized foreign competitors, the U.S. Gov't
>has taken on the role of subisizing big-ticket or long-lead R&D.)

This definitely had nothing to do with the entry of the government into
the support of science; some of it is relevant in technology.  There
was little involvement of federal funds, or except through support of
state universities, of state funds, for scientific research before WWII.
The US research position had been growing steadily, and the funding was
mainly from university and private foundation funds.  There were not that
many research universities, but they all provided their researchers with
low teaching loads, laboratories, assistants, and equipment, and funds for
travel to scientific meetings.  Not that much, but it was provided, and a
university wishing to get a scholar had to consider research funding as well
as salary.

During WWII, the military and the defense departments found that pure
scientists could do quite well with their problems, even though they 
were not exactly in the areas of the scientists' expertise.  This is
probably because of the "research mind" approach, which is not to try
to find a solution, but to understand the problem and see if a solution
emerges.  This works in stages, and as research scientists were used to
discussion about their problems, the job got done.

The military realized the importance of maintaining scientists for the
future, and started funding pure research after WWII.  But Congress was
unwilling to have military funds diverted into this investment into the
future supply of scientists, and set up other organizations, such as 
NSF, to do the job.  It also set up an elaborate procedure to supposedly
keep politics out.  Also, the government did a job on private foundations,
making it more difficult for them to act to support research.

The worst part of the federal involvement is that in those areas in which
the government supports research the university will not provide funding,
and in fact expects its scholars to bring in net government money.  Suppose,
as has been the case, I have a project which could use the assistance of
a graduate student for a few months.  What do you think happens if I ask
for one?  The answer I will get is, "Get the money from NSF."  Now the
money at the university level is a few thousand, but at the NSF level it
comes to about 20 thousand, and is likely to keep a faculty member from
getting supported.  So the government is, in effect, deciding which projects
get supported, and how much.  

Also, the government decided that the "wealth" should be spread.  So instead
of having a moderate number of universities which were primarily research
institutions, the idea that more schools should get into the act came into
being.  And instead of evaluating scholars, they had to go to evaluating
reseach proposals.  As a researcher, I can tell you that any research proposal
has to be mainly wishful thinking, or as now happens, the investigator conceals
already done work to release it as the results of the research.  What I am
proposing today I may solve before the funding is granted, I may find 
impossible, or I may find that it is too difficult.  In addition, tomorrow
I may get unexpected research results.  Possibly I may bet a bright idea
which solves yesterday's too difficult problem, or a whole new approach to
something I had not considered can develop.  This is the nature of the beast, 
and except for really vague statements, if something can be predicted, it
is not major research, but development or routine activity not requiring 
more than minimal attention of a good researcher.  

I believe that at this time less quality research is being done than would
have happened if the government had never gotten into it, and the government
is trying to divert researchers from thinkers to plodders.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61561
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission

In article <schumach.736263860@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com 
(Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

> In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
> 
>>How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
>>be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????
> 
> The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle
> means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again 
> if it should stick.
> 

Well, no, during the original deployment mission the HST aperture door was
not opened until after the Shuttle had landed.  

I presume that during a re-boost mission HST would be berthed in the orbiter
with the orbiter bay doors shut; but still there would be lots of contamination
worries.  I understand that the EVA suits are one of the hardest things to 
keep clean.

But I still don't know where the idea is coming from that HST _NEEDS_ a
re-boost.  We have many problems but our orbit is the least of them.  There
is certainly no plan to change the orbit in the first servicing mission in
December.

Ben


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61562
From: da709@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen Amadei)
Subject: Project Help


Hello, 
 
I am new to this news group, but I need some info.  I am 
currently doing a project for a class on the Internet.  I am
looking for good sources of information on space and astronomy,
more notably, our own solar system.  If anyone knows any good
sites where I can get information about this kinda stuff, please 
e-mail me at STK1663@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU.  Thanx.
 
                                ----Steve
 
(my newsreader doesn't have a .sig yet, sorry.)
-- 
Please Address repondes to Stk1600@Vax003.Stockton.Edu
                                     or
                           Adonchey@Faatcrl.Faa.Gov

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61563
From: abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1rs8hlINN8he@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes...
>  
>You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost,
>and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.

The "artist renderings" that I've seen of the HST reboost still have
the arrays fully extended, with a cradle holding HST at a ~30 degree
angle to the Shuttle.  I think the rendering was conceived before the
array replacemnet was approved, so I'm not sure if the current reboost
will occur with the arrays deployed or not.  However, it doesn't 
appear that an array retraction was necessary for reboost.
> 
>For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that
>there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks,
>etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could
>be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for
>safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile
>would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.)
> 

Thanks for the input on GRO's S/A design constraints.  That would 
explain the similar design on UARS.

>Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to
>orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing.
> 

Heck, the MMS project used to design _missions_ with servicing in mind.
The XTE spacecraft was originally designed as an on-orbit replacement
for the instrument module on EUVE.  That way, you get two instruments
for the price of one spacecraft bus (the Explorer Platform).  A 
second on-orbit replacement was also considered, with the FUSE telescope.

>-- 
>		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
>					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov

David W. @ GSFC

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61564
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: Drag-free satellites

On Sat, 1 May 1993 23:13:39 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

> No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
> constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
> there was no drag.  

     Well, almost. It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can 
engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order 
harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a 
satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of 
months to years. 

     My favorite example of this is the Soviet/Russian heavy ELINT 
satellites of the Cosmos 1603 class, which are in 14:1 resonance. In 
particular, C1833 has undergone two periods of prolonged *gain* in 
altitude, the current one having started in June 1991; the mean altitude 
of the satellite is now as high as it has ever been since launch on 18 
March 1987. (Looking at the elements for C1833 also shows the 
limitations of NORAD's software -- but that's another story.) 

    This probably has little relevance to space stations, since the 71 
degree orbits of the C1603 satellites are at 850 km, which is 
unacceptably far into the inner van Allen belt for manned platforms. But 
it's kind of interesting from the point of view of the physics of the 
situation. 

    (Orbital elements for these satellites are available on request.) 


Allen Thomson                  SAIC                       McLean, VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there an opinion here? If so, it's mine, not SAIC's


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61565
From: isaackuo@jell-o.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Drag-free satellites

In article <15821.2be3e125@cpva.saic.com> thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes:
>On Sat, 1 May 1993 23:13:39 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:
>
>> No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel
>> constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if*
>> there was no drag.  
>
>     Well, almost. It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can 
>engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order 
>harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a 
>satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of 
>months to years. 

A harmonic of the Earth's gravitational field?  What IS a harmonic of the
Earth's gravitational field?

>     My favorite example of this is the Soviet/Russian heavy ELINT 
>satellites of the Cosmos 1603 class, which are in 14:1 resonance. In 

14:1 resonance with WHAT?  It's not like there's any wavelength or frequency
to the Earth's gravitational field.  Now, there' might be some interesting
interactions with the Moon's tidal effect--is that what you're talking about?
>
>    This probably has little relevance to space stations, since the 71 
>degree orbits of the C1603 satellites are at 850 km, which is 
>unacceptably far into the inner van Allen belt for manned platforms. But 
>it's kind of interesting from the point of view of the physics of the 
>situation. 

What are the physics of the situation?  The only way I can see gravitational
effects being useful in adding energy to an object orbiting Earth is some
sort of interaction with the moon.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61566
From: perky@acs.bu.edu (Melissa Sherrin)
Subject: Re: moon image in weather sat image


I'm afraid I was not able to find the GIFs... is the list 
updated weekly, perhaps, or am I just missing something?

   _______
  (       )
 (_  (     )
   (      )
  (    )  )
 (  (     )
(__________)
 / / / / /
 Melissa Sherrin
 perky@acs.bu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61567
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.

rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:

>That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia 
>recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various
>type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell

Uh, why do they have to ask a state commision? Unless the state's buying...

Such a process will only increace the overhead to the power company
of selling different types of light, and will decreace the likleihood
that they will do so. And any efficient lights they might have been
planning in the future, go down the drain.....

>were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy
>a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to
>either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.

You could order it special. If enough people did so, it would be 
low cost. Last I checked, you could use UPS to buy stuff in Arizona
before going there.

Finally, I'm sure your state has things like small factories and
machine shops. You could go into business making lights that are
cheaper to use (thanks to their higher efficiency and the
fact that they aren't wasting energy on broadcasting to space)
and therefore _better_ than the old style...

>  At some
>point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.

Five year plans have to be enacted or the planning for the economy
will fall apart.
  
>Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..

As if the clean air act really cleaned up the air...

>  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code
>down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter
>is more likely to work.

_MY_ *experience* seems to suggest that you're trying too hard
to *educate* them (with the same methods used in American schools
to make any subject whatsoever as relevant and boring as Proto-Ugric)
instead of *selling* them on the idea.

...
>Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out 
>there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that 
>have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult
>the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt
>to boost public knowledge about space.

Well, wake up. Space is becoming a field of human endeavor
instead of just something we can look at from a long long
way away. There are practical space projects that could conceivably
(although probably not) cause lots of light pollution, and 
have been argued against on those grounds, even though they
might open up such possibilities, that people could vacation on
Mars if they wanted really dark skies...


>Bob Bunge
>rbunge@access.digex.com
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61568
From: steve@bcsfse.ca.boeing.com (Steve LeCompte)
Subject: Re: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)

In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
|> [Description of Boeing study of two-staged spaceplane using
|> supersonic ramjets deleted.]
|> 
|> In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about
|> reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like
|> to fool around with exotic airplanes.
|> 

No, it means that Boeing has something called foresight and vision...
Boeing became the success it is today by working on what you call "exotic
airplanes".

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 61569
From: gene@jackatak.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars?

All consipiracy theories aside, (they are watching though :-)), will NASA 
try to image the Cydonia region of Mars where the "Face
" is? If they can image it with the High resolution camera, it would 
settle the FACE question once and for all. I mean, with a camera that 
will have a pixel resolution of about 6 feet, we'd know whether all this 
stuff is real or imagination. 

Come on JPL and NASA folks, try to image it and settle this thing.

--
     gene@jackatak.raider.net (Gene Wright)
------------jackatak.raider.net   (615) 377-5980 ------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62104
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Over zealous shuttle critics

khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the
>other shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and
>most revolutionary space vehicle.

Ha!

>One cannot argue with the fact that
>it flies, lands, and is reusable. 

Watch me. It flies. It lands. It gets rebuilt.


>In my opinion, these were the only
>appropriate specifications for this program.

That's not what they told us back in the '70's.

>It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow to the
>X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies.

1. It isn't a logical follow-on. A logical follow-on would have
been either a Russian "snowfox" type thingey (for the lifting bodies)
or something like MMI's Space Van (or Boeing's TSTO, or the airbreathing
TSTO the military is allegedly _using_ now that probably cost less
to develop than the shuttle does to fly for a year).

>The engineering specs that the guys in the trenches had were to
>develop a system which was man-ratable, could land reliably, and could
>be reflown.  These goals were quite visionary for the 1970's, and I
>would argue that they are challenging even today, including for the
>DC-X program.

Keep that attitude, and it'll be a couple centuries before we get real
access to space, unless another country without all that baggage comes
along and kicks our ass in the space race.

>I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the
>space shuttle program.  If you have such documents, I would find them most
>revealing and interesting.  As far as I can tell, the only people touting a 
>1 flight per week flight rate were people on Capitol Hill or selling books 
>to the general public.  

Or NASA HQ. That doesn't give the rest of the program plausible deniability
if we deceide that it wasn't worth the money we've spent, which is by now
probably a lot more than Apollo.

>IMHO, political statements in the halls of the US Congress are not
>admissable as engineering specs because specs should be determined by
>NASA/DOD and contractors, not by Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents.
>Missions are defined by political leaders, but not the engineering
>specs.

Yes, but it gets sold on the basis of the political statements.
You're saying basically that it met the engineering specs (which is
questionable, IMHO) so it's a success, never mind that you couldn't
get the funding the shuttle eats with those engineering specs in
a thousand years.

>The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle.  This automatically
>qualifies it as an unparalleled engineering success.  You could argue
>about its political success.  But engineering wise, it is clearly the
>most advanced machine ever flown.  I argue that engineering and
>technical data for hypersonic flight is valuable in and of itself.
>Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the basis of economics.

You can get hypersonic flight data with an X-15 or a follow-on X-15
type vehicle for much less.

And economics and engineering are interchangable; engineering in the
absense of economics is basically just physics, and in terms of physics,
the shuttle looks like a failure next to the X-15.


Then Henry wrote:

HS>Sorry, support that I can arrange for launchers all goes to launchers
HS>that I have some hope of riding some day.  At the moment, that's
HS>DC-X's hoped-for successors.

>I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in 
>support of the DC-X program .  Your support of DC-X is based on hopes.
>My support for the shuttle program is based on record. 

The shuttle program has a bad record. I _once_ had hopes for the
shuttle program. By now I know those hopes were false. 

All I have for DC-X and similar and dissimilar experimental vehicles
are hopes. But at least I know they aren't false hopes yet.

I did support the shuttle, way back when. It didn't do nearly what
it was supposed to. It's time to move on to something that might do
the job of orbital delivery better. Or at all.


>I think that it is 
>also important to note that I do not object to DC-X.  It is visionary.  
>I originally posted:

>> I like the DC-X idea...  and I am really hopeful that it'll be a stunning success 

>Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the
>proven Shuttle program.  Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when
>shuttle is exactly what you guys need in order to learn how to operate
>DC-X on-orbit.

We don't want to learn how to operate on orbit. It launches, it
shoves out the payload, it lands. It doesn't waste payload hauling
up and down EDO pallets and the like.

The only thing to be learned from shuttle is how *not* to build a
launcher.

Finally: that bit about the "proven" shuttle. Are you hoping you can
tell a lie enough times and get someone to believe it?

>I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle
>and the Soyuz project.  Although, I may disagree with your method
>of analysis.  You probably will disagree with mine. 8-)  I think that
>the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and
>technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?) 

How much science and technology could have been done is the money spent
on shuttle had been spent differently?

...
>As for now, we need to stop thinking of DC-X and shuttle as mutually exclusive.

Learn about economics and the current budget realities in the United States,
please.

>Thanks for your time.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62113
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?

In article <1993May11.200419.13494@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes:
>  Its seems a bit scarry to me that such a project which for the first
>time in years promisses some hope in changing the current trend in
>massively overpriced boosting capability, lacks much publicity...

The people involved in it have been building hardware rather than writing
press releases.  This is not a high-manpower project; they don't *have*
spare people sitting around.

As I understand it, there has also been some feeling on the part of some
of the project management that publicity was not a good idea.  A lot of
people have been working on changing this view, with some success.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62114
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

It should be noted that the US benefitted not only from German science and
technology after WW2 but also from British science and technology. From the
discovery and manufacture of penicillin to jet engines, swing wing aircraft,
the hovercraft etc etc. all were shipped lock-stick-and-barel across the
Atlantic. We still are suffering from this sort of thing because of some of the
more parochial aspects of US procurement policy. Meiko, a British 
parallel computer company, for example, has now moved most of its facilities to
the US since that was the only way it could sell stuff over there.
                                                                  
-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62115
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Subject: Aurora GIF request

Has someone scanned in an artist's rendering of Aurora?  If so, is the GIF
available somewhere?

Please reply via email.

Thanks,


Craig

+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|Craig Keithley          |"If looks could kill, they probably will.      |
|Apple Computer, Inc.    |In games without frontiers, war without tears" |
|keithley@apple.com      |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)              |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62116
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <1993May11.153010.438@den.mmc.com> seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes:
>I can't speak for the Russian probes, but the last I heard, the 1997 US
>probe is planned to have air-bags on it (seriously!) to cushion the
>impact.  Hopefully, it won't be a "bouncer" (should just hit and go
>"thud").

The JPL/San Gabriel AIAA session last week showed the Russian
lander encased in a single large airbag with ravelable stitches.
The Russian design is pretty firm and hardware is due from
international experimenters by 1/94.
The proposed 1997 American lander has a bunch of airbags shaped
like a bunch of grapes.  They were dropping it in the desert last
month.  It may have a 20 kg mini-rover in it.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62117
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)

Ken:

Your arguments are thoughtful but you are going up against the Big
Boys if you're tackling Henry.  Allen Sherzer will doubtless chime in
on the subject of staggering operational costs, too.  Good luck, son.

In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
>and medical related packages.  

Ahem.  The Russians are in the Free World now, or at least it would be
Politically Correct to contend so.

>I am hopeful that DC-X,  or whatever the follow-on is eventually called, 
>will perform as you state.  But right now, I must admit that I am more 
>skeptical than ever.  

It will be tough to make DC-X succeed, and to turn it into an
operational orbital vehicle.  Doubtless it will fail to meet some of
the promised goals.  The reason people are so fond of it is that it's
the *only* chance we have now, or will have for a *long* time to come,
to develop a launch vehicle with radically lower costs.  

There is no Shuttle successor in funded development, NASP is dwindling
away, and ALS/NLS/Spacelifter sure as hell aren't gonna knock any
zeroes off that $2000-$3000 per pound cost.   Part of the blame for
this must be placed on a Shuttle program that consumes many annual
billions of the, er, Free World's available space cash.  As you will
no doubt hear from many correspondents in the days to come. (-:

DC-X is an attempt to break out of the vicious cycle by keeping
development costs low and flying incremental "X-plane" hardware.
It's been, to my mind, incredibly successful already-- they've built a
complex prototype in under 600 days for under 60 megabucks.  I would
have been extremely skeptical that this could be accomplished in 1990s
America, never mind flying the thing, getting a successor funded, or
building the DC-Y.

I'm sure you know well that launch costs are THE basic problem for any
expansion of astronautics.  I don't see a realistic  prospect for
beating down those costs, for multi-ton payloads, anywhere else.  If
the DC flops, it'll be business as usual in space.  The Nineties and
the Double-Oughts will look just like the Seventies and Eighties, a
prospect too depressing to bear.

(Pegasus represents another assault on the problem from a different
direction.  It doesn't lower cost-per-pound but it offers an orbital
launch for under ten megabucks.  It's creating its own market for
small payloads.)

I read the magazines and I've attended the last two IAFs. There are
plenty of engineers with paper ideas for cheaper launch systems, some
of them as good as or better than SSTO.  There is no sign in today's
world that any of these designs will be allowed anywhere near an
assembly line.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:
[...deleting some things I'm not going to prove tonight...]
>3  that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable
>DC-X successor

Strawman.  Is anybody seriously proposing this?  References, please. 
The DC must be developed in the real-world funding climate, which
includes a NASA ferociously committed to continuing Shuttle
operations, as well as the "bird in the hand" argument your common
sense tells you.   If DC-Y flies at all, it flies alongside the
Shuttle, not instead of it.

Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful
for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated.

>4  Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and
>technical payloads.

If a DC-X successor can fly a 10,000-kg payload for $1M, or even $5M,
rather than the $40M it now costs, more people will be able to afford
more payloads... for the same money, you can fly several satellites
instead of one.  Big outfits can fly multi-satellite series.  Little
outfits will be able to fly spacecraft of their own, instead of
begging a ride.  This is just supply and demand.  You should be able
to convince *yourself* that point 4 will be true, assuming DC makes a
big difference in costs.  Do you have some reason to think not?

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62118
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?

What is NASA's annual budget?
This year will do, a few years back wpuld be nice too
but I need this item fast so emails off the top of your head very
much appreciated (FAQs vanish here!).

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.034%)
                             up another notch as of end April 1993!-----^
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62126
From: jennifer@arts.com (Jennifer Witt)
Subject: space camp



I'm replying to someone who asked for information on space camp.
I have a brochure that has all different schedules. What age, what 
level and what program do you want to know the schedule of? Most of the 
missions are 5 to 8 days long. The address for Huntsville is:

Alabama Space Science
Exhibit Commission
U.S. Space and Rocket Center
One Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807

- Jennifer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
********    WHY  ARE  WE  HERE,  WHAT  DOES  IT  MEAN   *********************??



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62127
From: gord@jericho.uucp (Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.


Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers
themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based
critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to
completely sterilize the landers?

I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the
way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right
circumstances.


-- 
Gord Wait 	SMOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre
uunet!jericho!gord
gord%jericho@uunet.uu.net
or even some days

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62129
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
From: kubo@zariski.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)


>greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia
>(silver age) of current science.....
>
>is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently?
>please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade...
>completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really
>NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...)


Nope.  We're just living off the inheritance from our forefathers,
reading dusty old books, and exchanging baroque incantations among
a small circle of devotees.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62130
From: elowitz@noao.edu (Mark Elowitz)
Subject: Need help in finding address...

Could someone please help me. I am trying to find the 
address to the TDRS receiving station at White Sands
Missile Range. I am interested in possible employment
and would like to write for information.

Thanks...


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62131
From: cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master)
Subject: Re: McElwaine FAQ

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <C6vI08.6Dx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this
>>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something
>>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted.
>>
>>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>>--
>>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>>		    "Find a way or make one."
>>	             -attributed to Hannibal


>McElwaine got his access revoked?  Finally!!!!

>And they say it couldn't be done.  If we can rid the net of McElwaine,
>then anything is possible :-
>Simon


Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back!



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62150
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?

In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-)
>You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-)

If I may offer a constructive criticism, perhaps you should decide if you
love vehicles or the use they are put to. I, myself, think the F-86 is
a beautiful aircraft, but rest assured, I wouldn't even think of flying
it in combat today. Most of us want access to space and judge vehicles
on how they perform.

>We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life.  

Not to this degree.

>Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post 
>as touting DC-X is interesting.  

Why?

>DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?).  

Your wrong. The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has
the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle
isn't reusable, it's salvagable).

>I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at 
>supersonic speeds.  

The flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.

>How much in DC-X is redundant?  That's the real question.

The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
thrust and still land safely.

>Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?).

Everything can suffer from catastrophic failure but that's not the same
thing. Shuttle simply isn't a fault tolerent design, SSTO is.

>As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations.  

You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You
wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
harmful side effects would you?

>While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X 
>as you (and apparently others) are.  

You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it
will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do
need to do to build SSTO.

>But, DC-X will still have failures.  It is the nature of aerospace R&D.  

Again, refering to the DC-1, it will provide fully intact abort theroughout
the flight envelop. Shuttle doesn't. DC is fault tollerent, Shuttle isn't.

>It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying.  

Not true. Build a passenger pallet (a fairly easy thing to do) and it will
carry passengers.

>The impression I had
>when I visited MacDac Huntington Beach's Open House was that the payload space
>was limited and the man-ratable version was decades away.

I would suggest you talk to the DC-X crew themselves. Their original
schedule had an operational DC-1 flying in 96.

>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
>and medical related packages.  As for now, it is our only ticket into space 
>and has my support.

Your ignoring the dammage it does. Mannes space has a reputation for being
unreliable and hugely expensive. Shuttle supporters only make it easy for
opponents of manned space to kill it.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:

The only way to prove those things is to build it.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62317
From: Keith.Stein@f118.n109.z1.permanet.org (Keith Stein)
Subject: Re: Gps launch

Next GPS launch is scheduled for June 24th.

 * Origin: No. VA Astronomy Club 703-256-4777 (1:109/118)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62318
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?

In article <1993May11.200419.13494@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes:

>  Its seems a bit scarry to me that such a project which for the first
>time in years promisses some hope in changing the current trend in
>massively overpriced boosting capability, lacks much publicity.

That may change next month; at least I hope it will. A couple of hundred
journalists have requested press passes for the test flights. Sustaining
that publicity however, will be a problem. 

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------33 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62319
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

In article <1993May13.101820.21298@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.

>We have to be careful to define what is payload and what is propulsion
>and spacecraft structure. 

Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it
payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to LEO roughly the
same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.

>of course Saturn lifted more than Shuttle,
>but it's cost to orbit in same year dollars was higher.

They where pretty much the same in terms of cost/pound. A resurected
Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound (if development costs are ignored)
which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.

    Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------33 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62373
From: thierry@curlie.UUCP (Thierry Lach)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master) writes:

> etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes:
> 
> >Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
> >about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
> >going on in the space community, he seems to know it. 
> >	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek:
> >	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you?
> >	1) Do you ever eat or sleep?
> >	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research? 
> >	Or do you just use an account there?
> >Just curious.
> 
> >Aaron
> 
> Well, Henry Spencer is *also* responsible for parts of Cnews, and other
> internet related things.
> 
> Quite a guy.  :)
> 
> Onya Henry!
> 
> c.
> 
This question comes up frequently enough that there should be a faq
about it...

============================================================================
Thierry Lach                                curlie!thierry@sycom.mi.org
#include "std.disclaimer"
"Sufficiently superior technology is indistingushable from magic"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62374
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <lv8fpoINNqo1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes:

> Some new information has been discovered recently. Microscopic fossils
> have been found in VERY old rocks. The theory is that this life is so
> old that it must have been destroyed during the periodic intense 
> meteorite bombardments that were a feature of the early solar system.
> Under this theory life originated on Earth multiple times (between
> multiple meteorite bombardments), and therefore the conditions for
> the creation of life cannot be that unlikely.


This was all badly reported in the news.  There is no evidence that
signs of life found in old rock predate putative planet-sterilizing
events.  Rather, the argument was that if life arose shortly the last
sterilizing event, then it must be easily formed.  The *inference*
was that life originated before and was destroyed, but there was
no evidence of that.

However, even this argument is flawed.  It could well be that origin of
life requires specific conditions (say, a certain composition of the
atmosphere) that do not last for long.  So, perhaps life formed
early only because it would have had no other chance to do so,
not because it was likely that life would originate under those
conditions.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62375
From: dwilmot@zen.holonet.net (Dick Wilmot)
Subject: Re: looking for PLANET MAPS

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes:

>> Where can I get topographical maps of Mars, Venus, other terrestrial
>>bodies?

>I still use the old National Geographic maps from the Apollo and Viking eras.

>The other people to ask would be the US Geological Survey.  They have maps of
>just about everything.  Unfortunately, I do not have their address.

There is an office on the middle left US coast on Middlefield Road in
Menlo Park, CA (415) 329-4390

>-- 
>Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>		    "Find a way or make one."
>	             -attributed to Hannibal
-- 
          Dick Wilmot
          Editor, Independent RAID Report
          (510) 938-7425


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62385
From: 0004651657@mcimail.com (THE ARTSTONE COLLECTIVE)
Subject: Near Miss Asteroids

If by chance you answered my request for NEO Asteroids in the last two days
please send them to me directly. I by mistake deleted instead of read
all the space-request messages .

Thanks and sorry.

Harry G. Osoff
Science & Technology Editor
Access News Network

jukebox@mcimail.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62386
From: tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

In article <511151978@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>The most revealing comparison between Shuttle and Soyuz is cost. All
>other comparisons are apples and oranges.
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb

I like this statement, though for my own reasons.  Cost comparisons depend
a lot on whether the two options are similar, and *then* it becomes very
revealing to consider what their differences are.  Can Soyuz launch the
Long Exposure Facility?  Course not.  Will the Shuttle take my television 
relay to LEO by year's end?  Almost certainly not, but the Russians are
pretty good about making space accessible on a tight schedule.

Comparing S and SS points up that there are TWO active space
launcher-and-work-platform resources, with similarities and differences.
Where they are in direct competition, we may get to see some market
economics come into play.

tombaker
                                   --------------------------------------
                                   My employer's opinions are not my own.
                                   I am self-employed.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62387
From: tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker)
Subject: Re: Another SF Irritation RELIEVED! Doctor Who vindicated.

In article <schumach.736495556@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>This "reverse the polarity!" crap always bugged the hell out of me, too,
>until I found an actual, live, real-life example of it working! I quote
>from Aviation Week and Space Technology for 2 July 1990, page 25:
>
>	He [Colonel Charles F. Stirling, speaking of the problem of
>	fuel bubble formation in Titan 4 Aerojet LR87 engines] said
>	engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had run into
>	the same problem and suggested that the Air Force look at the
>	effect of Aerozene 50 decomposition. The fix, now flown three
>	times without incident, was to reverse the inlet and outlet
>	portions of the hot gas cooler.
>
>! Once again, life imitates art. 

How about the discussion of the STS Tether experiment.  Ran forward,
it would suck energy from the Earth's magnetic field, while trivially
slowing the Shuttle.  It could also have run backward -- if they ran 
electricity through the tether the other way, it would have trivially
propelled the Shuttle faster.

But an even better example comes to mind.  There's this electronics guy,
someone like Craig Anderton or Don Lancaster.  Ten years ago he wrote about
an invention of his.  He could take a light-detector, run current through
it at about a hundred times its rating, and it would glow.  He got legal
rights to this design of a combination "fiber optic emitter/receiver".  This
turned out to be the basic unit of ATT's  (I think) plan to bring Brazil's
communications system into the 21st century.  (The article was mostly about
his legal wranglings with the company that eventually got him well-compensated
for his invention.)

tombaker
(yes that's my real name)
                                   (My employer's opinion's are not my own.)
                                   (I am self-employed)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62388
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

Someone named Hansk asked about pictures.

Well, there is an archive of portraits in xfaces format at
ftp.uu.net. Henry Spencer's picture is there somewhere, along
with several thousand others.

I don't remember the path, though it should be easy to find.
Remember, though, it seems to use both internet and uucp
addresses.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62389
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Vandenberg launches?

In article <1993May15.210927.23846@mri.com> paulc@mri.com (Paul Carroll) writes:
>I know about the phone numbers, etc. to get Kennedy/Canaveral
>launch information, but is there any equivalent way of finding out
>about launches at Vandenberg?

Bear in mind that a lot of the Vandenberg launch traffic is military and
at least semi-secret.  They aren't interested in publicizing it beforehand.
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62390
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

In article <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes:
>My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer 
>some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.

Apologies...  Your mail is probably in the pile that arrived just before
I got sick about a month ago...  A reply will appear eventually...

>Now, what I really would like to see is an interview with Mr Spencer. A
>magazine (photograph!), or even better a tv program. (No! I want both!)

So far, there have been none (unless you count an interview in The Amateur
Computerist about the history of netnews, which may be disqualified because
TAC's budget doesn't run to reproducing photos...).
-- 
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62391
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-)

In article <1993May13.212559.19618@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <C6z8Ax.KCx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

>	What evidence is there that there is a trend towards greater
>species diversity over time? What I see going on right now is a major
>extinction event, and  it isn't clear to me that the diversity 10K years
>ago was necessarily greater than 600 million years ago.

Well, there are several bursts in species diversity I can think of.
The Cambrian and Ordovician explosions resulted in a vast increase
in animal diversity. Likewise, after the one-two punch of the
Permian and Triassic extinctions, the number of marine animals
rose steadily (**) to an all-time high (*) just prior to the spread 
of humans.

(**) biggest exception being the K/T (bye bye dinos) extinction

(*) about 800 families

Also, plants arose from green algae and colonized the land in
succesive sweeps. Mosses colonized very wet environments first,
ferns (who had evolved vascular tissues) took over more territory
when they evolved (1). These were eventually (mostly) replaced by gymnosperms
(pines and the like) (2) and then (mostly) displaced by angiosperms (flowering
plants -- now the dominant plant group on the planet(3). Fungi
also radiated greatly with the invasion of the land. 

(1) around the carboniferous (up to about 200 families)
(2) around the triassic (up to maybe 250 families)
(3) starting in the cretaceous (rising to about 600 families currently)

It's unclear (to me at least) what the max equilibrium number
of species the earth can hold (***) and if it has ever hit this
in the past. It could be (warning: speculation alert) that
diversity has never reached a peak because mass extinctions
happen often enough to keep the total number down.

(***) This would depend a great deal on how fragmented
specific ecosystems were. 

See Cowen's book "History of Life" for a not-too-technical
run-down on, well, like the title sez, the history of life.
Or see, Wilson's "Diversity of Life" for a view centered more
on current ecology -- this is (IMHO) the best popular biology
book of (what the hell, I'll say it) all time. 

>							James Nicoll

Follow-ups to t.o.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62392
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote


That's assuming it could get built by them.

Of course,  it would probably sport Cruise missile Racks,
Sidewinder Missile tubes,  Bomb Points,  extra drop tanks,
a Full ECM suite, Terrain following radar  and stealth
materials.

IT might not fly,  but a technology demonstrator does
not require  actual flight.

:-)
pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62393
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

In article <C6zyuE.CGC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(However, I do agree with Richard that if you're planning short missions,
>it may not be worth the trouble of providing anything more than a urine-
>disposal rig and a few baggies.)

I don't know about C-5's,  but on C-130's  which are regularly used
for Medium  haul  Personnel transport by the Army,  only have a
funnel and a garden hose  in the aft.  The female personnel
hate long trips in the box cars.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62394
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

On Sat, 15 May 1993 01:45:54 GMT, hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) said:

Hans> As somebody replied on whether the space shuttle is connected to
Hans> Usenet: "No. Of course the main flow of information would be up,
Hans> unless Henry Spencer would be aboard, in which case the main
Hans> flow of information would be down."

Gene Miya says that Henry will never go aloft in the Shuttle; the
payload bay isn't big enough for his chocolate chip cookies.

When Henry was here at Dryden, he was looking pretty covetously at the
SR-71s and the F-104s, even though they don't have much cookie space.
I guess he figured that he could manage for a short flight....
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62395
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Shuttle and Pennicillin


Pennicillin if i have everything correct,  was a highly valuable
Myco-toxin,  discovered during WW2.  It proved to have an amazing
Bacterio-cidal effect without human toxicity.   It's immediate
administration  showed immediate dramatic results  solving
problems  that previously were fatal.  Although initially
enormously expensive to culture,  within 3 years,
the price had fallen at least two orders of magnitude,
and within 10 years,  was  not much more expensive then
aspirin.  Penicillin was also usable for an amazingly wide
class of infections.

Centoxin is a drug that is not passing FDA approval.  It promised
amazing results for Toxic shock, a rapidly fatal disease.
It consumed enormous amounts of funding  in testing and
developement,  However it works  less then 1 in 5 times
of administration  and costs $2,000 per administration
with no promise of any reduction in manufacturing cost.
The drug thus costs $10,000 per useful case,  and is
implicated in a slight increase in mortality for some
patients.

I would not dare to compare the shuttle to Pennicillin,
but to centoxin.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62396
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: DC-X Publicity



No.  Do this.

Have the DC-X1, make an unscheduled landing at teh 50 yard
line during the halftime show of This years Superbowl.

ABC  will have more reporters there  for that,  then at
any news event.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62397
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: DC-X Publicity


Even better.  Make up pete conrad in a Martian Suit,
and have him get ou;t  and throw a football
to the refs.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62398
From: shoran@NMSU.Edu (Stephen Horan)
Subject: White Sands & DC-X

It is interesting to note in the past few days' correspondance that some
believe that poor old New Mexico is not capable of hosting a commercial
space launch business.  For many reasons, it can, and we here on the front
lines see no reason why it should not.  The 'spaceport political publicity'
referred to the other day had its intended effect - the state of New Mexico
did establish the start of the necessary government infrastructure to back a
commercial space port.  The commanding general at WSMR is in full support of
dual-use for the facilities.  The WSMR location also has some strategic
advantages in the form of necessary infrastructure and controlled air space
to support the project.  Just because the folks involved have not done the
traditional aerospace-equivalent of vapor-ware by inviting folks out to kick
non-existent tires but have been merely doing their job to prepare for
launch, don't think that nothing has happened.  From my interactions with
the MACDAC folks, I get the impression that they want to set a firm,
believable launch date based on vehicle readiness and not just some fiction
to plug a space on a calendar.  I believe that all will happen this summer
and don't worry, the locals here are planning to let everyone know when it
does occur.
Stephen Horan
shoran@nmsu.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62399
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott

In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
There was an editorial about this in the Times the following
Tuesday.

Are others as upset about this as I am?  I feel that a global
boycott of anyone involved with such a project would be a good
idea.  Perhaps it could be made illegal in various countries
around the world?  Do others agree?

-david

[Relevant messages found on the net:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: webb@tsavo.hks.com (Peter Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Stopping the sky-vandals
Date: 13 May 1993 21:17:22 GMT
Organization: HKS, Inc.
Distribution: world



If you don't want to see Space Marketing put up orbiting billboards, write
them, or call them, and tell them so.  You might also write your
congresspeople.  Space Marketing can be reached at:

Attn: Mike Lawson
Public Relations Dept.
Space Marketing
1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600
Rosewell, GA 30076
(404)-442-9682

--
Peter Webb 					webb@hks.com
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.		Voice: 401-727-4200
1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860		FAX: 401-727-4208 

[Alternatively, you could try to find out who their clients
 will be and tell *them* how you feel.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Subject: Light Pollution (Space Ads) Information
Keywords: light pollution, advertisements
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:45:36 GMT

        Dave Crawford (crawford@noao.edu), Executive Director of the 
    International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), sent me information on where 
    you can write in regards to the proposed "Billboards in the Sky" and
    asked me to post it:

        Karen Brown
        Center for the Study of Commercialism
        1875 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
        Washington, D.C. 20009-5728
        U.S.A.

        Telephone:  202-797-7080
        Fax:        202-265-4954

        Please note that I have no involvement whatsoever with the CSC.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the Sky
Date: 10 May 93 21:51:11 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: algol.jsc.nasa.gov

F.Baube[tm] (flb@flb.optiplan.fi) wrote:
[...]
: That's roughly akin to saying let's let Anaconda strip-mine 
: the Grand Canyon so that strip-mining can boldly go where no 
: strip mining technology has gone before .. because after all, 
: mining means profits, and profits mean technological advance-
: ment, and technogical advancement means prosperity, and pros-
: perity means happiness, and so to hell with the Grand Canyon ..

Space advertisement in LOW Earth Orbit is very short term -- on the
order of a few years before the orbit decays.  (Higher orbits last
longer.)  Advertisers will certainly be aware of the environmental
aspects of their advertising.  Fred's argument is roughly akin to
saying that it's bad to cut down trees, so we shouldn't advertise in
newspapers.  Think that through, Fred.

Picture this: Our space billboard is a LARGE inflatable structure,
filled with "bio-degradable" foam instead of gas.  It scoops up space
debris as it orbits, thus CLEANING the space environment and bringing
you The Pause That Refreshes at the same time.  Because of the large
drag coefficient, it will de-orbit -- safely burning up -- within a
year.

Embedded in the foam structure is a small re-entry vehicle, which does
not burn up during entry.  It contains the electronics and propulsion
system (which may be refurbished and re-used) as well as space science
experiments proposed and built by high school students in
advertiser-sponsored science fairs.

Advertisers buy time on the billboard, whose surface is made up of
tiny mirrors controlled by the avionics package.  The avionics can
reconfigure the mirrors to reflect different messages at different
parts of the globe.  Clever programming allows different languages
to every country.

During orbital night, the mirrors turn perpendicular to the surface,
and small lights are revealed.  The lights spell out messages for all
to see.

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

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62400
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
>section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
>in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
>reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
>and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
>There was an editorial about this in the Times the following
>Tuesday.

I realy like this idea, it would be wonderfull to see such a 
big bright satelite on the night sky. I will even promise to
try to buy whatever product it advertises to help this project.

Please write to Space Marketing and encourage this project.
I sadly dosent have enough money to invest in it.

>congresspeople.  Space Marketing can be reached at:

>Attn: Mike Lawson
>Public Relations Dept.
>Space Marketing
>1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600
>Rosewell, GA 30076
>(404)-442-9682



>Space advertisement in LOW Earth Orbit is very short term -- on the
>order of a few years before the orbit decays.  (Higher orbits last
>longer.)  Advertisers will certainly be aware of the environmental
>aspects of their advertising.  Fred's argument is roughly akin to
>saying that it's bad to cut down trees, so we shouldn't advertise in
>newspapers.  Think that through, Fred.

>Picture this: Our space billboard is a LARGE inflatable structure,
>filled with "bio-degradable" foam instead of gas.  It scoops up space
>debris as it orbits, thus CLEANING the space environment and bringing
>you The Pause That Refreshes at the same time.  Because of the large
>drag coefficient, it will de-orbit -- safely burning up -- within a
>year.

>Embedded in the foam structure is a small re-entry vehicle, which does
>not burn up during entry.  It contains the electronics and propulsion
>system (which may be refurbished and re-used) as well as space science
>experiments proposed and built by high school students in
>advertiser-sponsored science fairs.

>Advertisers buy time on the billboard, whose surface is made up of
>tiny mirrors controlled by the avionics package.  The avionics can
>reconfigure the mirrors to reflect different messages at different
>parts of the globe.  Clever programming allows different languages
>to every country.

>During orbital night, the mirrors turn perpendicular to the surface,
>and small lights are revealed.  The lights spell out messages for all
>to see.

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

>                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
>                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
>                           JULY 1969, A.D.
>                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)120 13706

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62401
From: vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the
folks who want to boycott anyone who has anything to do with this project are
both right.

That is, I think that space advertising is an interesting idea, and if someone
wants to try it out, more power to them. However, a company may discover that
the cost of launch is not the only cost of advertising, and a company who 
gauged that ill will would lose them more revenue than the advertising would
gain might decide to bow out of the project.

I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
in poor taste.

Tom Courtney


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62402
From: wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes:
>I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
>I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
>richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
>in poor taste.
>
>Tom Courtney

I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
to an astronomer like Sagan.

Reid Cooper


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62403
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:

>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.

Well, we already suffer from street hoardings.  If you don't
watch TV, you are free of commercials there, but if you want
to go from A to B you cannot escape beer ads.

>us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
>by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
>to an astronomer like Sagan.

I think the right time to stop this proposal is now.

If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter).  Microscum will want to
name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.  Where do we draw the line?
Historically mankind is not very good at drawing fine lines.

I'm normally extremely enthusiastic about all forms of resource
allocation for space research; I think it's the most important
investment possible for mankind in the long run.  But this is not
the way to get the money.

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62404
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

In article <pgf.737329707@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>>In article <C6z3sw.1As@rice.edu> conor@owlnet.rice.edu (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes:
>>>In article <1srfii$79k@suntan.eng.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>>>Huh?  Please state your criteria for selecting the "greatest philosopher"
>>>title.  P.S. Ever read any Nietzsche?

>>Greatest = most likely to be remembered five hundred years hence.
>>I must admit that that makes many of my personal favorites not 
>>that great.  I make no comment on Nietzche except to remark that 
>>he was no Immanuel Kant.  Interpret that cryptic remark as you 
>>please.

>Some people have appended that remark, that Nietzche was no Kant,
>with "thankfully." I haven't read enough of either to comment, although
>everyone tells me I should read Nietzche.

I would have to say that the "greatest philosopher" title would have to
go to Plato since the whole enterprise of philosophy was essentially
defined by him.  Although he got most of his answers wrong, he did 
definitively identify what the important questions are.  I think it
was Descartes who said that "All philosophy is just a footnote to Plato."

If I were to choose which philosopher made the most important advances
in human knowledge over his lifetime, that's simple...it is Aristotle.
This is so much the case that many simply refer to him as "the philosopher".

Regarding Nietzsche, he's one of the most entertaining, although since his
ideas were so fragmented (and since his life was cut short) it is doubtful
that his influence as a philosopher is likely to be very extensive 500 years
from now.  They'll probably still be reading him in 500 years though.

As for "modern" philosophers, I would have to say that Kant was the most
influential since he had such a strong influence on almost everyone who
came after him (and unfortunately, they maintained his errors and 
amplified them over time).

I would say that the most influential "american" philosopher would have to
be Dewey.

But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in
500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect
was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.

--Brian

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62405
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.

In article <2534@tdbunews.teradata.COM| swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com writes:
|
|No if you're Fred Hoyle.  He rejects the Big Bang, and proposes an infinitely
|old universe (*really*), so in his model life *always* starts on a given planet
|by seeding from outer space - there has *always* been life somewhere.
|
Didn't Fred Hoyle abandon the steady state theory?

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62406
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?

In article <1sti5kINNoq4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist
>>gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing
>>forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the
>>creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for
>>pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large 
>>active boneless creatures on land.
>
>Hydraulics can make rigid tubes.  No energy required just for
>support.  Hydraulics also allow a creature to produce large
>forces with weak muscles, using the principle of a hydraulic jack
>rather than a lever.

This is one of those "yes, but" things. It's true that a hydraulically
pressurized tube can be somewhat more rigid than an unpressurized tube,
but even at 2000 PSI levels a hydraulic hose will bend rather easily,
though it's straight-on compressive strength is high, and it's torsional 
resistance increase is practically nil. On the other grasping member, 
there's no doubt that hydraulic "leverage" exists in nature. Tree roots 
are an example. Given time they can shatter concrete as osmotic pressure
increases.

>>It's interesting to note that, on
>>land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects
>>having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a 
>>stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures 
>
>Kangaroos are 3-legged.  The specific number of limbs a creature has is
>an accident of evolution, it is hard to make changes in some
>structures.  The panda has a thumb plus as many fingers as its
>ancestors (five?) on each hand, but the thumb is a modified wristbone
>rather than a modified finger, and extra fingers are much more common
>than extra limbs, especially fully-functional ones.

Kangaroos 3-limbed? I don't think so. If you take the view that the
tail is a limb, then monkeys and kangaroos are 5-limbed. I think the
tail is a different kind of structure, grossly enlarged in the case
of the kangaroo, but primarily still an instrument of balance rather
than locomotion. I don't know much about panda "thumbs", so I'll ask
is it opposable?

>>Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would
>>seem to dictate that active complex creatures  stay in a size range
>>similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens
>>seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant.
>
>Why can't a lemur or a brontosaurus* be intelligent?
>
>[*Yes, I know that the brontosaurus is a mythical beast produced by
>putting the head of another dinosaur on an apatosaurus, but so far
>space aliens are also mythical.]

Well I won't say flat out that they can't be intelligent, but I'll
bring a couple of lines of argument to bear to try to show why I
don't think it's likely. First let me say that when I say "intelligent"
I mean complex behaviors in response to novel situations on a level
with, or greater than, human tool use and tool building. IE assuming
suitable manipulators are present on the creature to allow it to alter 
it's enviroment in a planned way, it will do so. That's certainly not
a universal or complete definition of intelligence, but it will suffice
for a putative technological alien.

Now no one knows exactly what makes a brain capable of thought, but
it's generally accepted that one of the criteria is a certain level
of complexity. This is generally determined by the number of neuron
cells, and their interconnections. So a creature the size of a lemur
wouldn't have enough neurons to support complex thought. This argument
is considerably less clear in the case of the dinosaur. There's room
for a large brain, though no indication that one ever developed. One
reason this may be true is neuronic speed. The electrochemical messages 
that trigger neurons require time to propagate. This makes it difficult
for a highly complex central brain to coordinate the movements of very
large creatures. So there's little selection pressure for such brains.
Instead, a simpler distributed network evolves. This doesn't rule out
intelligent dinosaurs, but it points in that direction.

Then there are the thermodynamic arguments. A tiny creature like the
lemur needs to eat frequently because it's internal heat is rapidly
lost due to it's high surface to volume ratio. I contend that a creature
that must spend most of it's time and energy feeding won't have the time
to develop and exercise intelligence. That argument may be somewhat weak.
The dinosaur's problem is the reverse, it must moderate it's heat production 
because it's high volume to surface ratio makes it tend to retain waste heat. 
I'm assuming that a certain temperature range is optimal for chemical
reactivity reasons for productive neuron function. So creatures would
tend to need to maintain a regulated temperature in a range near that
of humans if they are carbon based. That tends to rule out cold blooded
creatures as potential homes of intelligence. Some people contend that
some of the dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. But for a creature
the size of a brontosaur, it's activity levels would have to be restrained
or it would be prone to generate an internal steam explosion from the
waste heat. Whales are similar size, but they can reject heat to the
ocean, a much more efficient sink than air. I suspect that for intelligence
to manifest itself, a certain degree of activity in interacting with the
environment is necessary. IE monkey curiousity. I doubt a large dinosaur
would be capable of that much activity.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62407
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

In article <1993May13.184233.6060@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since
>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those
>on the ship and those who invested in it.  If a plane or spacecraft
>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it
>land in an inappropriate place.


Considering the magnitude of loss of life in both the Moro Castle
and Titanic disasters,  I can't believe you can be so blithe
there fred.

Besides if a LNG tanker breaks up in a close harbor, you can kiss
off quite a lot of population.  same thing for any chemical
tankers.

I know the coast guard makes  mandatory safety equipment
checks on all watercraft.  they use this as an excuse to
make narcotics  searches, without warrants.

I suspect, that  commercial craft need a certificate at least similiar
in scope to an air worthiness certificate from the DOT.

pat


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62408
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC

In article <stephens.737384293@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
|had.'  and went on to mention that in aviation if you are found
|with an adjustable spanner in your tool box you can be fired. An
|adjustable spanner by trying to fit all nuts, fits none of them
|properly, and so damages all of them. In the demanding environment of
|the air the adjustable wrench is rightly considered a lethal instrument.


Dave,

	What i recall from air craft maintence.  Torqque  and safety
wires or cotters  were more important, then if some bolt
face were nicked up.  If it was in bad shape you replaced it
with another $30,  aircraft grade bolt.  I can see adjustable spanners
eating up profit,  but lives?

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62409
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: SDIO kaput!


Not to mention how those those liberal presidents, Nixon, Ford,
Reagan, Bush.   did nothing to support  true commercial space
activities.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62410
From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Near Miss Asteroids (Q)


TRry the SKywatch project in  Arizona.

pat

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62411
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73w0t.FpH@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:
>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>us loathe it.

It's a moot point: Step out of your door go _anywhere_ (except possibly
your mailbox). You will be "subject to some ad agency's 'poor taste'"
 
>...I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
>by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
>to an astronomer like Sagan.

While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
they are extremely bright.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62412
From: dempsey@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days

In article <1t30fu$str@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:

> In article <1993May14.163044.1@stsci.edu> dempsey@stsci.edu writes:
>>This is a real world too.  You can't do science like this with out doing
>>politics as well, unfortunately.  Good PR keep the $$ coming in.
>>
> 
> "Do you know what makes rocket ships fly?  Funding, makes them fly.
> No Bucks,  No Buck Rogers" :-)
> 
>

Ok, so you have proven you saw the right stuff.  However, as I said above,
it takes politics and PR to keep the bucks coming.
"No politics, no bucks, no buck rogers."
 
> 
> 	I think you are missing the point.   If an agency has gathered some data
> on something.  and once tax dollars have been spent,  the data is now
> Property of the people of the US government.  The government may
> charge to recover some of the cost,  or they may charge to maintain
> the data,  but they cannot claim the data  is proprietary,  unless it
> is classified national security data.
>

Yes this may be true in the case of the SCIENCE data coming from the spacecraft
and other stuff about the operations.  However, there is still stuff regarding
regular operation that belongs to the company and they have ever legal right
to keeping it theirs.  But this does not mean that everything can or
should be swept under the umbrella of company proprietory data.
 
> I live down the road from NIH.  THey run studies all the time.
> I can go into their  library  and  photocoppy all the raw data from
> any study thev'e  done.   Just bring a roll of quarters.
>

You can do the same here...you just have to wait a year.
 
> I'm not saying you guys don't have internal rules,  but they are
> not supported by US law.
>

Safeguard internal company data are indeed supported by US law.  
 
-Dempsey


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62413
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <1t4pkc$ovf@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
>companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
>sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
>looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By 
the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas, 
the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

The night sky on a Lunar backpacking trip would still be very 
pristine... 

There's always been a problem of having to get 
away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
"wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of 
growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
not save your view of the night sky, because by the time 
such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
the stars...

>Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
>if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...
 
An ad on a moon of Jupiter would be rather pointless, since you need
a telescope to see them. However, I'd love to see them get all
the publicity they could from underwritting the "Coca Cola Io
Orbital Mapping Probe."  

>...Microscum will want to
>name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.

They already can, to some extent: The IAU allows names derived from
sponsors or patrons of scientific research. If Microscum donates
money to a university astronomy program, one of the galactic 
astronomers could easily get a newly discovered galaxy named after
them.
  
                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62414
From: trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski)
Subject: Re: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

In <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes:

>In article <1993May12.220831.8619@leland.Stanford.EDU> etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes:
>>Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
>>about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
>>going on in the space community, he seems to know it. 
>>	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek:
>>	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you?
>>	1) Do you ever eat or sleep?
>>	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research? 
>>	Or do you just use an account there?
>>Just curious.

>My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer 
>some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.

well, IMHO (and i am just a nobody net.user) henry spencer is to
sci.* as kibo is to alt.* and rec.*....

....but i could be wrong...(did anybody mention the illuminati)

kitten
--

***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten       /\ /\  a.k.a. barbara ann
trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu            {=.=}
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"    ~
"summmmmmmmmmmertimmmmmmmmmme....and the livin' is easy" gg


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62415
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <1993May16.145159.3100@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <1t4pkc$ovf@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
   >If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
   >companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
   >sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
   >looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

   Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By 
   the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas, 
   the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
   trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
   5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
   same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
   to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

This is nonsense.  Its like saying that by the time commercials
on television become commonplace every citizen will have their own
hour long nationally broadcast TV program.

   There's always been a problem of having to get 
   away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
   scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
   of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
   or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
   on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
   "wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
   billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of 
   growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
   not save your view of the night sky, because by the time 
   such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
   finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
   the stars...

The rest of your post is strange mishmash of "its already really bad"
and "it doesn't really matter if it gets worse."  You should try to
figure out what you are really arguing for.  (Kneejerk anti-environ-
mentalism?)

-david

P.S.  A passing sattelite does not have the same effect on visible
light astronomy as an object as bright as the full moon.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62416
From: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay)
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>|>Report called it The Science of Order, but that's probably pomposity.

>|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration
>|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important
>|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does
>|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract
>|deductive field.

>How do you do experiments in mathematics?
Well ...
Have a look at a new journal: Journal of Experimental Mathematics
It has several Fields medallists on its editorial board.
You want to knwo more?
Try Klaus Peters in Boston or David Epstein at Warwick .

-- 
Deep ideas are simple.
                      Odd groups are even.
                                           Even simples are not.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62417
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

Others said:
# >Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
# >if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...

This reminds me of the old Arthur C. Clarke story about the Coca Cola
ad stashed inside an experiment.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62418
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:

>But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in
>500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect
>was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.

1. Please take this out of sci.space.

2. Ayn Rand was not only born in Russia, but educated there. A lot
of her philosophy reflects not only a European education but a 
reaction against certian events in Russia while she lived there.
I've heard that to the extent there is a division of modern philosophy
between the "Continental" and British/American schools, Rand belongs in
the former in terms of methodology et al, even though she was trying to
say things that would belong in the latter school.

I.e. she was trapped in the language of Kant and Hegel, even though
she was trying to say (at times) much different things.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62419
From: jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: STS-57 inclination?

From article <1993May14.023220.1@vax1.tcd.ie>, by apryan@vax1.tcd.ie:
>>          Primary payload: Spacehab 1 EURECA 1-R   Inclination: 57 degrees
> I have seen elsewhere that inclination is 28 degrees. 
> Which is correct?

Hmmm... Atlantis left Eureca in a 28 degree orbit. Retrieving it is
going to be *REALLY* fun if they fly to 57 degrees. Torque that 
Canadarm! :-)

 - Jonathan


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62420
From: ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48)
Subject: Re: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons

Are you guys talking about the Soviet "shuttle"?  It's not "Soyuz",
it's called "Buran" which means "snow storm."

(At least that's what they call it on Russian TV).


-- 
Gavin Helf
UC Berkeley Political Science
Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies
ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62425
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment

In article <C71EnF.HJM@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993May13.100935.21187@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration
>|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important
>|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does
>|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract
>|deductive field.
>
>How do you do experiments in mathematics?

Nowadays, usually with a computer. No theory predicted the numeric 
discoveries listed above. No one can yet write an algorithm that will
predict the precise behavior of any of these at any precise level of
their evolution. So it remains for experimenters to gather data on their
behavior.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62426
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott


[Space ad proposed]

This is undoubtedly the sickest thing to come down the marketing pipe
in years, and the best reason for resurrecting the "Star Wars" killer
satellite system.

Dan


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62427
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes:
>In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the
>I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination." 
>I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the
>richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just
>in poor taste.

Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
of wealth would help them ...

Dan



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62428
From: richard@cs.arizona.edu (Richard J Shank)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.


I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky --

		THIS SPACE FOR RENT



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62429
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <C73w0t.FpH@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:
>>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>>us loathe it.

>While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)

>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

Tell that to the people who run the 10-meter Keck telescope, or the 
astronomers and engineers working on the Gemini twin 8-meter telescope
project.  It took 7 years to build Keck I and now they are building
Keck II.  According to the December 1992 Sky & Telescope, "This
second 10-meter eye will convert the facility into a binocular telescope
with double the light-gathering power and the ability to resolve
the headlights of a car some 25,000 kilometers away."   Japan's 8.3-meter
Subaru telescope will soon join Keck on Mauna Kea.  All these telescopes
will work in the infrared, yes, but they are _visible light_ telescopes!

And haven't you heard anything about adaptive optics?  A lot of research
was done with "Star Wars" funding, and some is now being shared with
astronomers.  This shows great promise.  Soon, probably within a few
years, even the largest telescopes will be able to resolve to their 
theoretical limit _despite_ the distortions of the atmosphere.

To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
are the dying fields.

George Krumins
-- 
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding 
                                  / /\ \ 
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62448
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

stange@meena.cc.uregina.ca writes:

>Phil, your point is well taken.  It is still a sad idea.

I'm worried by the concern about it though, for a number of reasons
that have nothing to do with Space Advertising (which for a number of
reasons is probably doomed to fail on financial grounds).

(And I've been reading and (and writing) this thread since way
back when it was only on sci.space).

For starters, I don't think the piece of light-pollution apparatus
would be as bright as the full moon. _That_ seems to me to be a bit
of propaganda on the part of opponents, or wishful thinking on the
part of proponents.

Second, this charge of ruining the night sky permanently has been
levelled against other projects, that either 1) don't increace light
pollution significantly, or 2) increace light pollution only over the
target area.

You may or may not recognize #1 as being Solar Power Sattelites.
I think it was Josh Hopkins who actually did the math, showing that
SPS's weren't that bright after all, ending some two months of frenzied
opposition on the part of dark-sky activists and various other types.

#2 is mainly projects like the orbiting mirror the CIS tested
recently.  While slightly more worrisome, I'd like to point out that
any significant scattering of light outside the target area for one of
these mirrors would be wasted as far as the project would be
concerned, and something any project like that would work against
anyway. And given some of the likely targets, I don't think there's
going to be much of an outcry from the inhabitants. There is too much
dark sky in the northern CIS during the winter, and I doubt you'll find
many activists in Murmansk demanding the "natural" sky back. If anything,
he'll probably be inside, stripped buck naked in front of the UV lamp,
making sure he'll get enough vitamin D for the "day."

The mirror experiments aren't something they're doing for crass
advertising. They think that if they can build one, it'll be one of
those things people in the affected areas will think they couldn't
have lived without before. And I doubt anyone's going to really be
able to convince them to stop.


--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62449
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:

>We're talking about an orbiting ad here, not some little point
>of light that puts a streak or two on a photograph.  It should have been
>clear that anything used for advertisement is going to be a bit larger than
>a point source.  Even if this was not clear there's a previous post on this
>topic that makes it clear:

>----
>Message-ID: <FOX.93May15223005@graphics.nyu.edu>
>Sender: notes@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Notes Person)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: graphics.cs.nyu.edu
>Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
>Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 03:30:05 GMT
>Lines: 132

>In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review
>section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing"
>in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide
>reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large
>						     ^^ ^^^^^
>and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising.
>^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^

From the description I've read, it's prob. only going to be
as bright as Jupiter. Anything else is probably hype from the
opponents or wishful thinking from the sponsors.

If we could do something as bright as the full moon that soon,
that cheap, the CIS would have done it already.


--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62450
From: tony2@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (gozdz,antoni s)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

In article <C74rAn.4qA@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin) writes:
>
>[Space ad proposed]
>
>This is undoubtedly the sickest thing to come down the marketing pipe
>in years, and the best reason for resurrecting the "Star Wars" killer
>satellite system.
>
>Dan
>

Why don't you activist guys cut misc.invest out of this thread?
They didn't offer any shares for sale yet...

Tony
tony2@cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62451
From: tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C74rGL.4u7@ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan
Herrin) writes:
[deleted]
>Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
>advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
>of wealth would help them ...
>
>Dan
>

Not to flame (REALLY), but thats an abominable viewpoint (while were
on the subject of abominations).  If we followed the "redistiribution
of wealth" (and by the way, ist that what Clinto and the Democrats are
trying to do...), EVERYONE would starve in short order.  Not only is
it impossoble to organize a fair distribution that depends on every
(wo)man's altruism (can you say black market under communisim
anyone?), but the current methods of resource production are entirely
energy dependant.  There are not enough sources of cheap capital
(aside from human capital) to allow us to stop looking at space a an
excellent source of materials and realestate.  More directly, perhaps
you mioght consider the fact that BILLIONS are spent by TV companies,
and their sponsors, (ABC, NBC, CBS...) on the SUPERBOWL, the OLYMPICS,
and even on monday night baseball games.  Perhaps we should boycott
those games?  If DC-X and company get finished, and there is a market
for it, those "abominable" space will probably be much more cost
effective for the companies, and those starving children.  More people
buy products, the company hires more workers, end result fewer
children die of starvation.

-- 

---------=======================================================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or tfv0@lehigh.edu
Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!
"Never before have we owed so little to so many..."- R.T.Folk
"One must not confuse John Dunne's famous quote `No man is an Island' with
 New York Telephone's `We're all connected'" - Dad

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62452
From: tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
[deleted]
>To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
>pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
>matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
>are the dying fields.
>
>George Krumins
>-- 
[deleted]
Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy
computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the
defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see
those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely
reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it?

The way I see it (and please, astromomers give me a swift net-kick in
the butt if i'm out of the ball park), the astromers are making the
best of limited possiblities, there's only one hubble, and the shuttle
makes another in the near future a non-thought.  Perhaps those self
same billboards could have small optical receptors of a limited kind
mounted on the reverse sides of the mirror's (if that is what is used)
and then the whole thing becomes a giant array telescope...

-- 

---------=======================================================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or tfv0@lehigh.edu
Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!
"Never before have we owed so little to so many..."- R.T.Folk
"One must not confuse John Dunne's famous quote `No man is an Island' with
 New York Telephone's `We're all connected'" - Dad

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62453
From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The

Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.
Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
anyway.  Also, scopes in low orbit (like Hubble) can only observe things
continuously for ~45 minutes at a time, which can be a serious
limitation.

>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the

I sure as hell does if the 'point of light' is half a degree in extent
and as bright as the moon.  Have you ever noticed how much brighter the
night sky is on a moonlit night?


>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)

Existing satellites *are* points of light, but an advertising sign that
appeared as a point would be useless, so I rather think these will
appear larger than a 'typical' satellite.  Also, satellite tracks *are*
ruining lots of plates in the current Palomar Sky Survey.
>
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

What deparment are you in anyway, Philosophy?  You obviously are not
qualified to speak about astronomy...

--Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
R. Lee Hawkins	 	    			lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu
Department of Astronomy     		        lhawkins@lucy.wellesley.edu
Whitin Observatory         		      	    
Wellesley College				Ph. 617-283-2708
Wellesley, MA 02181				FAX 617-283-3642
________________________________________________________________________________



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62454
From: Dan Gaubatz <dgaubat1@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control
everything.  I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other
kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably
the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are 
not in fact creaters of the universe.  Annoying little species, aren't we?


**********
Dan Gaubatz (dgaubat1@cc.swarthmore.edu)
Itty Bitty Programmer Guy
The Geometry Forum
Swarthmore College

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62455
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][) writes:

>In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
>[deleted]
>>To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is 
>>pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
>>matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
>>are the dying fields.
>>-- 
>[deleted]
>Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy
>computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the
>defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see
>those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely
>reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it?
>[deleted]

The main effect of the spherical aberration problems with the
primary mirror was to drive the computer engineers to develop the image
processing software that much faster. When they use the _same_ deconvolution 
software on the images from the fixed Hubble, be ready for some 
incredible results!  There is every reason to believe that the results will 
_exceed_ the original specs by a fair margin.  

Adaptive optics is a combination of hardware and software.  It works 
realtime, not after the fact, as is the case with Hubble.  You might be
interested to know this technology has made it to the amateur market, in
the form of the AO-2 Adaptive Optics System.  Starting on page 52 of the 
April, 1993 Sky & Telescope is a three page review of this new product.
It lists for $1,290.  The article states: "The AO-2 Adaptive Optics System 
comes in a handy soft-plastic case that a three-year-old could carry 
around."  Even though this device is really only good for the brightest
objects, "it could cope with image movements of up to 0.8 millimeter
in the telescope's focal plane."  Now just imagine how well this infant 
technology will do in a few years, especially in a dedicated system that 
has hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many man-hours invested in its
development.

George Krumins
-- 
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding 
                                  / /\ \ 
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62474
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 1993 14:31:20 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
fc> Modern, 
fc> ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
fc> orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
fc> opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
fc> driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
fc> telescopes. 

 Here's one radio astronomer quite concerned about 
 radio-frequency interference from portable telephones, etc.


--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62475
From: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 1993 05:48:59 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:

fc> In article <1993May17.021717.26111@olaf.wellesley.edu> lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
>>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The

>Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
>ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.

fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big, 
fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less 
fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
fc> to me...

 That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy 
 didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it
 didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think 
 X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.
 I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in 
 general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)
 observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost 
 no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.

 Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only 
 had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more
 instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has
 resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of 
 total astronomical work.


>Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
>as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
>and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
>anyway.

fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter 
fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.

 Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using 
 adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared 
 observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.

 And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution, 
 from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the 
 selling points of HST).





--
                         | e-mail: lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  (607) 255-6420
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62476
From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter J Card)
Subject: Re: Over zealous shuttle critics

We`ve had the the Great Western, the [ dunno ] and the Great Northern
postulated as Brunel`s masterpiece. Keep boxing the compass chaps, you`ll
get round to it eventually.

The Great Western was a highly successful transatlantic mail ship,
with hybrid sail and steam propulsion. The Great Eastern, which broke
the 'Little Giant' financially and otherwise, was a revolutionary leap
forward in ship design. A thirty thousand ton all steel vessel, with
primary steam propulsion, it was at the time easily the biggest ocean
going vessel ever built. Brunel took advantage of the fact that cargo
and / or fuel capacity rose with the cube of scale, while drag rose
with the square, so a really big ship could steam thousands of miles
without coaling.

Unfortunately, there was no real market for such a beast at the time,
and it was eventually sold off at scrap values. As another poster
said, it then went on to a successful career as a telegraph cable
laying ship. It was in fact the only ship of its day capable of laying
a transatlantic cable in one go, with the endurance and capacity to
carry the huge reel all the way, and the manoeuverabilty to dredge for
defective sections. See Arthur C Clarke`s book "How the World was One"
[ I think that`s right ]

If that`s how the Shuttle goes down in history, as a technical triumph
and a financial disaster for the builder, it would not be entirely
ignoble, but I doubt if history will be so charitable.  Its true the
Shuttle can do things no other launch system can do, but are they
worth doing? With low cost access to space, you could have an
affordable space station for doing shuttle-like extended manned
missions. As it is, the shuttle is not so much a space-truck as a
space-RV, ( only not so cheap to run :-( )
-- 
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366 
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62477
From: raptor!rlove (Robert B. Love )
Subject: Re: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL

In article <1so442$3qm@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat)  
writes:
> >Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC)
> 
> 
> Now is that an aptly named person or what?
When I went thru all the spinning chair tests at JSC the PhD in charge 
was Milt Reshke but the technician who strapped me in and, on occasion,
inserted the "probe" (needle) was named Bev Bloodworth.


Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62478
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C760Dv.K75@agora.rain.com> jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>If anybody has a strong claim to control of the  the night sky, it is 
>astronomers.  Check out the common law.  In the days when wild lands
>weren't scarce, pioneers laid claim to the land by putting it to
>use, eg clearing and growing a crop.  Even trespassers can lay claim to 
>the right of passage if if they've done it for long enough and the
>owners have not complained or taken steps to stop them.  Usage
>begets property rights.
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it. 
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
>Another consequence of their ownership is that they are free to sell
>it.  Now, astronomers need money for their work.  If light
>polluting billboards and mirrors go up, they will need even
>more money to buy extra image processing equipment, filters,
>space telescopes etc. to get around the problem.
>
>So, as long as we can define who "astronomers" are (eg do
>"they" include amateur astronomers?  Nature lovers?)
>we can set up a system of voluntary consensus to solve this
>dispute, instead invoking bans, regulations, etc. enforced
>by bribed politicians at the point of a gun (why do folks always
>think of that sordid solution, "we ought to pass a law", to
>solve problems first instead of as a last resort when other
>methods have failed?)
>
[Stuff deleted]
>  This proposal certainly needs work, but how about working on 
>these kind of ideas first before writing "there ought to be a law" 
>letters to our Congresscritters: let's give noncoercive consensus, via 
>the free market, a chance to solve this problem.
>
>Jim Hart
>jhart@agora.rain.com

Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on
earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the
night sky without `coercion'.   Remember that not every nation
follows the English common law.   In most countries, for most of
history, it was probably true that the rulers `owned' everything
not explicitly owned by individuals.   Even in North America,
where by the principle enunciated, the aboriginal inhabitants should
have owned everything, when new arrivals wanted to use land
and resources, they just took it over.  In case Mr. Hart hasn't noticed,
there is currently a brutal war going on in Bosnia about who owns what.
Of course, if some friendly super power were to give an international
astronomy organization some anti-satelite missiles and also agree
to defend it if attacked, such a proposal might work, but it
would hardly be non-coercive.

Some of us nutty environmentalists think it might make sense first
to try to mobilize public opinion against advertising in space
and also to use governmental actions (like taxing power, for example)
to discourage them.   This of course would be too coercive for
Mr. Hart.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62479
From: england@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad)
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games

Hello netters,

   I'm new to this board and I thought this might be the best place
for my post.  I have a question regarding satellite technology seen
in the movie Patriot Games.  In the movies, the CIA utilizes its
orbitting sats to pinpoint a specific terrorist camp in N Africa.
The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are
capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles.  My
question is this:  The camp in question was taken out by the
British SAS.  And while the SAS was in action, the CIA team was
watching in the warroom back in Langley, VA.  The action of the SAS
was clear and appeared to be relayed via a sat.  The action was at
night and the photography appeared to be an x-ray type.  That is,
one could see the action within the tents/structures of the camp.
Does such techology exist and what is it's nature?  i.e., UV, IR,
x-ray, etc.

PS  Who wrote the book Patriot Games?

Mad Vlad

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62480
From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <C760Dv.K75@agora.rain.com> jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it.  If they don't complain now against scenic trespassers
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
   Is English (American, Canadian, etc.) common law recognized as
legally binding under international law?  After all, we're talking about
something that by its very nature isn't limited to the territory of one
nation.

Doug Loss
loss@husky.bloomu.edu



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62481
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

In article <geoffmC7508L.F1K@netcom.com>, geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes:
|> In article <C74rGL.4u7@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space 
|> >advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
|> >of wealth would help them ...
|> 
|> 
|> This is specious emotionalism.  Commercial enterprises typically don't
|> spend money on starving children (or other world problems) anyway, at
|> least not in excess of whatever minimum amount is required for lip-
|> service and PR purposes.  Precisely where would you place the threshold
|> beyond which advertising spending is deemed "abominable," and why?

Yes!  Just take money from the profitable commercial enterprises
and give it to the government to "redistribute."  Government is so much
more efficient, trustworthy, and noble than self-serving businesses. :)

Let's nip this redistributionist ignorance in the bud.  If it were not
for commercial enterprises, the whole world would be starving.

Roger Collins

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62614
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Subject: Re: Questions for KC-135 veterans

>>if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
>>side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
>>hard disk....
> 
>Hmm.  I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might
>make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways
>force on the head.  Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you
>were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might
>even be a problem for new drives.


well it seemed to work for the Mac II installation I was talking about.
Oh yeah there is something I forgot to mention :
even though you're not suppposed to have water around, there IS
 some condenstion d
dripping from the roof of the plane make sure that your hardware is covered.
Make also sure that your keyboards are protected from the two-phase flow
coming out of sick people. It happened to us.....

Good luck.


Igor Carron
Texas A&M University



Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62615
From: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton)
Subject: Re: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote

In article <1993May14.200217.3044@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
> 
> A staffer just told me an interesting story about DC-X. An Air Force
> costing team just looked at the DC-X (now called the DC-X1 BTW) and
> gave an estimate on how much it would cost the Air Force to build it.
> It cost SDIO $70M to build and it would cost the USAF:
> 
> 
> 
>         $320 million or four and a half times as much.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the cost difference could be
accounted for by the AF's requirement for superfluous 2167 documentation, 5
or 6 huge requirements and design reviews, travel expenses flying personnel
around to meetings, and over specifying the hardware. I doubt that the
actual fabrication cost in materials and labor would be very different from
SDIO's costs.

Of course, this is my cynical opinion based on years of watching the
government procurement process try to cover up a lack of creativity and
innovation with reams of documentation. ;)

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62616
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Billsats

Jeffrey L. Cook sez;
>>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
>>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
>>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
>>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, people
>>are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would so
>>vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.

Lazlo Nibble sez;
>Buying Lichtenstein and paving it over with ground glass would also
>"demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism", but that doesn't make it
>a particularly attractive idea.  Is that what this country has been reduced
>to?  The planetary equivalent of a guy who gets his penis out at parties?

Actually, paving ground glass over Lichtenstein wouldn't demonstrate the
strength of Western Capitalism, since it's strength depends on use of
the mind and materials in the fulfillment of needs and desires.  Mind you,
I'm not saying *no-one* would benefit from glassed-over land, but I don't
think anyone would actually pay for it, unlike the (potential) billsats.

I don't quite follow you on the part about someone exposing their genitals
at parties, but I got a chuckle from it anyway.  And I thought I had some
strange friends :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62708
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing -- Boycott

> According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard"
> will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small
> and visually unimportant... 
> 
>   Anyway, he suggested that the
> visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet
> at 45k feet (12km) altitude.

----------

Are you sure he didn't tailor his comments according to what he guessed
you wanted to hear?  In other words, LIE?  Think about it - what good 
would a billboard do for an advertiser if nobody can see it?  Who would
advertise, telescope companies?  Pretty narrow audience here.

Newsgroup: sci.space
Document_id: 62709
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
: While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
: because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern, 
: ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
: orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
: opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
: driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
: telescopes.

Hardly.  The Keck telescope in Hawaii has taken its first pictures; they're
nearly as good as Hubble for a tiny fraction of the cost.

: In any case, a bright point of light passing through
: the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
: thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
: might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
: they are extremely bright.)

I believe that this orbiting space junk will be FAR brighter still;
more like the full moon.  The moon upsets deep-sky observation all
over the sky (and not just looking at it) because of scattered light.

This is a known problem, but of course two weeks out of every four are
OK.  What happens when this billboard circles every 90 minutes?  What
would be a good time then?

:                                              Frank Crary
:                                              CU Boulder

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

